Subject: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

From: Gyan Mishra <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 02:42:34 -0400

Dear PCE WG,

We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap and
a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE were
highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused.

This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and
development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing
mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of
PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it
may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite
protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still
interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong
technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc...

As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments and
expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well as
impact in other protocols and the network, etc.

>From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive feedback
from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are interest
in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei implementation is
ready.  Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this draft simplifies
the implementation of SDN controller.  One question asked by Aijun was
related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed meaning
hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN
(SDN-like) SBI.  For any operators already using PCEP as SDN (SDN-like)
SBI, a direct PCEP session already exist between all the nodes in the
network and the PCE which would be the PCECV SDN scenario in which case the
R flag in the open message is set to 0.

We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT regarding
interest in PCEP-LS.

We also had feedback from Bin as they have implemented PCEP and have
interest in this experimental implementation of this work.

I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research and
development efforts of this draft as experimental.

As stated in the last WG poll, I would like get feedback from the WG on
scope of experiments especially related to scalability concerns and impact
to other protocols on the network.

Thanks!

Gyan (on behalf of co-authors)

[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/

==

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions Architect *

*Email [email-masked] <[email-masked]>*

*M 301 502-1347*

-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [email-masked] <[email-masked]>*

*M 301 502-1347*

---

From: Siva Sivabalan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 08:43:01 -0400

Hi Gyan,

I support this experimental work. If a router communicates with PCE over
PCEP for path computation purpose, it might as well propagate topology via
PCEP eliminating the need for another protocol for that purpose. The lesser
the number of protocols, the better for simplifying network operation.

Thanks,
Siva

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:43 AM Gyan Mishra <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Dear PCE WG,
>
>
> We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap
> and a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE
> were highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused.
>
>
> As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments
> and expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well
> as impact in other protocols and the network, etc.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>

---

From: Gyan Mishra <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 10:47:09 -0400

Hi Siva

Many thanks for your support and responding to WG poll sent for interest in
progressing research and development efforts of this work as as an
experimental draft.

Yes that is one of the main R=0 goals and use cases to be able to reuse the
existing PCECC CCI object SDN (SDN-like) SBI session for PCEP-LS, thereby
eliminating the needs for another protocol in this case BGP-LS NBI for that
purpose.  That is the main goal and use case and very nicely pointed out
Siva.

This draft does provide the nice flexibility as well if operators are not
yet using PCECC for R=1, to allow for mixed environments and cater to the
operators needs and requirements.  We want to emphasize that we are not
trying to by any means compete with the other existing solutions but rather
provide operators another valuable tool in the operators toolbox.

As part of the next steps in building the framework for the scope of the
experiments performed the to prove out any scalability concerns and impact
to other protocols namely the reuse aspect of the SBI.

We would like to prove out that this solution is solid and viable in the
tests and that the reuse of the SBI in fact provides improves scalability
rather than diminishing scalability by leveraging the R=0 existing sessions
between all nodes versus PCEP PCE R=1.  We would also like to prove out in
the experiment that we are in fact not overloading the SBI by the reuse for
PCEP-LS and in no way impacting the existing SBI PCECC PCE session.

We would like to address in the experiment any and all scalability,
overload, collateral damage related issues  or any fear or issues anyone
has to prove that this is a solid and viable solution on par with the other
existing solutions as an extra tool in the operators toolbox.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 8:43 AM Siva Sivabalan <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive
>> feedback from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are
>> interest in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei
>> implementation is ready.  Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this
>> draft simplifies the implementation of SDN controller.  One question asked
>> by Aijun was related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed
>> meaning hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN
>> We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT
>> regarding interest in PCEP-LS.
>>
>>
>> I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research
>> and development efforts of this draft as experimental.
>>
>>

*Gyan Mishra*

*M 301 502-1347*

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 19:40:12 +0100

Hi Gyan,

I am very much in favour of positioning this work as Experimental. 

It is important (as with all IETF Experiments) to capture:

-          What stops this extension “escaping" in the Internet?

-          What stops this experiment clashing with other work or harming deployed equipment? 

-          How will you judge the success or failure of the experiment, and when? 

-          What follow-up to the experiment do you propose?

Best,

Adrian

From: Gyan Mishra <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 05 July 2021 07:43
To: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>; Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; pce-chairs <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

Dear PCE WG,

We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap and a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE were highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused. 

This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc... 

As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments and expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well as impact in other protocols and the network, etc.   

>From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive feedback from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are interest in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei implementation is ready.  Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this draft simplifies the implementation of SDN controller.  One question asked by Aijun was related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed meaning hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN (SDN-like) SBI.  For any operators already using PCEP as SDN (SDN-like) SBI, a direct PCEP session already exist between all the nodes in the network and the PCE which would be the PCECV SDN scenario in which case the R flag in the open message is set to 0.  

We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT regarding interest in PCEP-LS.

We also had feedback from Bin as they have implemented PCEP and have interest in this experimental implementation of this work.

I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research and development efforts of this draft as experimental.  

As stated in the last WG poll, I would like get feedback from the WG on scope of experiments especially related to scalability concerns and impact to other protocols on the network.

Thanks! 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf

==

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

M 301 502-1347

-- 

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 

M 301 502-1347

---

From: Gyan Mishra <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 14:44:38 -0400

Thank you Adrian!!!

Gyan

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 2:40 PM Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:

> *From:* Gyan Mishra <[email-masked]>
> *Sent:* 05 July 2021 07:43
> *To:* Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>; Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>;
> [email-masked]; pce-chairs <[email-masked]>;
> [email-masked]
> *Subject:* draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear PCE WG,
>
>
>
-- 

*Gyan Mishra*

*M 301 502-1347*