Amendments to Stateful PCE Communication Protocol
Description: Amendments to Stateful PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) draft-many-pce-stateful-amendment IETF 125- Shenzen Andrew Stone (andrew.stonenokia.com) - Presenter Mike Koldychev (mkoldychcisco.com) Siva Sivabalan (ssivabalciena.com) Shuping
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Amendments to Stateful PCE Communication Protocol" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Amendments to Stateful PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) draft-many-pce-stateful-amendment
IETF 125- Shenzen Andrew Stone (andrew.stone@nokia.com) - Presenter
Mike Koldychev (mkoldych@cisco.com)
Siva Sivabalan (ssivabal@ciena.com)
Shuping Peng (pengshuping@huawei.com)
Diego Achaval (diego.achaval@nokia.com)
Hari Kotni (hkotni@juniper.net)
Samuel Sidor (ssidor@cisco.com) 1<br>
slide2. draft-many-pce-stateful-amendment Presented in IETF 123, content goes back many, many years - forked from operational-clarification
Updates PCEP RFC stateful related content
1. Introduces stateful LSP bring-up mechanism
2. Discourages SR-RRO/SRv6-RR0 2<br>
slide3. -03 Changes 3. ** New section – Orphaned LSPs without delegation
Issue originally raised by Marina Fizgeer in draft-fizgeer-pce-redundancy-extensions
Gap in RFC8281. On failure of delegated PCE:
(a) PCC can give delegation to a backup PCE
OR
(b) backup PCE(s) can request delegation from the PCC for orphaned LSP
But:
Backup PCE does not know when it becomes orphaned or that it should take action
Proprietary workarounds exist involving timers
Open for non-deterministic backup behavior when PCEs > 2 3<br>
slide4. -03 Proposal Not solving the problem right now in this document
Updates RFC8231 to discouraging its use and require PCC to attempt redelegation 4 "The PCC MAY attempt to redelegate an orphaned LSP by following the procedures of [RFC8231]. Alternatively, if the orphaned LSP was PCE-initiated, then a PCE MAY obtain control over it, as follows" "PCC MUST attempt to redelegate an orphaned LSP to a connected PCE by following the procedures of [RFC8231] and in accordance with local policy." OLD NEW<br>
slide5. Next steps Seeking working group adoption
Manageability/Security sections to fill out
Any suggestions welcome 5<br>
IETF 125- Shenzen Andrew Stone (andrew.stone@nokia.com) - Presenter
Mike Koldychev (mkoldych@cisco.com)
Siva Sivabalan (ssivabal@ciena.com)
Shuping Peng (pengshuping@huawei.com)
Diego Achaval (diego.achaval@nokia.com)
Hari Kotni (hkotni@juniper.net)
Samuel Sidor (ssidor@cisco.com) 1<br>
slide2. draft-many-pce-stateful-amendment Presented in IETF 123, content goes back many, many years - forked from operational-clarification
Updates PCEP RFC stateful related content
1. Introduces stateful LSP bring-up mechanism
2. Discourages SR-RRO/SRv6-RR0 2<br>
slide3. -03 Changes 3. ** New section – Orphaned LSPs without delegation
Issue originally raised by Marina Fizgeer in draft-fizgeer-pce-redundancy-extensions
Gap in RFC8281. On failure of delegated PCE:
(a) PCC can give delegation to a backup PCE
OR
(b) backup PCE(s) can request delegation from the PCC for orphaned LSP
But:
Backup PCE does not know when it becomes orphaned or that it should take action
Proprietary workarounds exist involving timers
Open for non-deterministic backup behavior when PCEs > 2 3<br>
slide4. -03 Proposal Not solving the problem right now in this document
Updates RFC8231 to discouraging its use and require PCC to attempt redelegation 4 "The PCC MAY attempt to redelegate an orphaned LSP by following the procedures of [RFC8231]. Alternatively, if the orphaned LSP was PCE-initiated, then a PCE MAY obtain control over it, as follows" "PCC MUST attempt to redelegate an orphaned LSP to a connected PCE by following the procedures of [RFC8231] and in accordance with local policy." OLD NEW<br>
slide5. Next steps Seeking working group adoption
Manageability/Security sections to fill out
Any suggestions welcome 5<br>