Subject: [Pce] Comments on draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02

From: Olivier Dugeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:33:56 +0200

Dear authors,

I read your draft carefullyand I have a global comment concerning LSP 
configuration on the Label Edge Router. Indeed, setting up the TE-LSP 
tunnel is not sufficient. The FEC must also be configured in order to 
correctly handle the traffic that input in the corresponding TE-LSPtunnel.

I know and understand that take into account the FEC is somewhat out of 
scope the PCE charter and could be complicated, but, from an operational 
point of view, it will become very complex if I must used another 
protocol to configure the FEC. For example, used PCEP to setup the 
tunnel and then Netconf for the FEC. In this example, I win some time 
and simplify the solution by using only Netconf to setup the tunnel and 
the FEC.

So, I would like to know if you think it would be appropriate to add 
support for the configuration of the FECinyour proposal draft? For 
example, the EndPoint Object allows simple FEC based on IP source and/or 
destination. Adding support for DSCP (EXP bits) could be useful as well 
as address mask for IP address e.g. I put all traffic that match DSCP= 
EFand subnet = a.b.c.d/z into this tunnel. Then, more complex FEC could 
be handle by adding informationon port number if necessary.

Regards,

Olivier
-- 

Orange

*Olivier Dugeon*
OLNC/OLN/WTC/IEE
Senior research engineer, QoS and network control
Phone/Fax: +33 296 05 2880/1470
Mobile: +33 6 82 90 37 85
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Ina Minei <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:44:58 +0000

Olivier, 

Thank you for reading the new version. This draft is restricted to LSP initiation. Mapping traffic to LSPs is a separate problem and is being discussed separately from this, unfortunately no proposal was available in time for this IETF.  You may also be interested in http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tanaka-pce-stateful-pce-data-ctrl-00.txt

Will be happy to continue the discussion at the IETF, 

Ina 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Olivier Dugeon
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:34 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Comments on draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02

Dear authors,

I read your draft carefullyand I have a global comment concerning LSP configuration on the Label Edge Router. Indeed, setting up the TE-LSP tunnel is not sufficient. The FEC must also be configured in order to correctly handle the traffic that input in the corresponding TE-LSPtunnel.

I know and understand that take into account the FEC is somewhat out of scope the PCE charter and could be complicated, but, from an operational point of view, it will become very complex if I must used another protocol to configure the FEC. For example, used PCEP to setup the tunnel and then Netconf for the FEC. In this example, I win some time and simplify the solution by using only Netconf to setup the tunnel and the FEC.

So, I would like to know if you think it would be appropriate to add support for the configuration of the FECinyour proposal draft? For example, the EndPoint Object allows simple FEC based on IP source and/or destination. Adding support for DSCP (EXP bits) could be useful as well as address mask for IP address e.g. I put all traffic that match DSCP= EFand subnet = a.b.c.d/z into this tunnel. Then, more complex FEC could be handle by adding informationon port number if necessary.

Regards,

Olivier
-- 

Orange

*Olivier Dugeon*
OLNC/OLN/WTC/IEE

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:56:08 +0000

Hi Olivier:

You may like to look at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp/.
It has a section on LSP Usage. So far it addresses the following
requirements. We can discuss more on this.

        - The target IGP instance for the Remote-initiated LSP needs to
          be specified.

        - Should the as Remote-initiated LSP be advertised an IPv4 FA/
          RA, IPv6 FA/ RA or as unnumbered FA/ RA.

        - If Remote-initiated LSP is to be advertised an IPv4 FA/ RA,
          IPv6 FA/ RA, what is the local and remote IP address is to be
          used for the advertisement.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar