Olivier hi! Lots of thanks for pointing to the PCEP-related draft. I will look it up and, if necessary, will come back to you with more questions.
Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: [email protected] From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Olivier Dugeon Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2:34 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Michael Gorokhovsky <[email protected]>; Rotem Cohen <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Shell Nakash <[email protected]>; Ron Sdayoor <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [spring] Nesting of Path Segments Hi, May I suggest to read our draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-01 It provides a PCEP based solution suitable to setup end-to-end multi-domain Segment Path will keeping each domain independent and without the need for A to insert the complete stack. In addition, it allows to combine Segment Path and RSVP-TE tunnel, letting each domain enforces independently its local path with the technology it chosen. The counter part, is that each domain needs to deploy a PCE, but, for SR-TE is more or less essential. Regards Olivier Le 18/07/2018 à 12:06, Alexander Vainshtein a écrit : Dear all, After sending my previous email I’ve noticed that label stacks in the diagram can be somewhat reduced if X-to-Y BSID would refer to combined X-to-Y path + X-to-Y Path SID and the same for Y-to-Z. The modified diagram is shown below. In addition to compression it also fixes a (Y-to-X Path SID added in the last stack). However, even with the modified diagram, A would have to insert both A-to-Z Path SID and A-to-X Path SIDs in the stack, and Z would have to handle both Y-to-Z and A-to-Z Path SIDs on receive. (OAM packets for Y-to-Z path would not include A-to-Z Path SID, of course). Such a scheme, if allowed, could be used, e.g., for monitoring packet loss (or delay) not just end-to-end but also on each separate sub-path. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 12:13 PM To: '[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>' <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Shell Nakash <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Michael Gorokhovsky <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Ron Sdayoor ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Rotem Cohen ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Nesting of Path Segments Dear authors of the Path Segment in SR-MPLS<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-02> draft, My colleagues and I have a question about possibility of nesting of path segments in SR LSPs. One relevant use case is shown in the embedded diagram below. It shows a network comprised of 3 domains and a bi-directional SR-TE path that crosses these domains and is comprised of bi-directional SR-TE LSPs in each of these domains. [cid:[email protected]] It is not clear to us whether such constructs are in our out of scope of the draft, because it states in Section 2.1: When Path Segment is used, a Path label MUST be inserted at the ingress node and MUST immediately follow the last label of the SR path. This seems to suggest that only one Path label will be iserted by the ingress node. Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ___________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. ___________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring ___________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. ___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
