Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:07:59 +0100

Dear WG,

Although the discussion on this ID has been relatively moderate, the  
document has been stable for a while and discussed at several WG  
meetings.

This starts a 2-week WG Last Call on I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp- 
req-04.txt.

Please send your comment to the authors and copy the list by Dec 15,  
noon ET.

Thanks.

JP and Julien.

---

From: dhruv dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:52:30 +0530

Dear Authors, 

I found one inconsistency between the draft "draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04" and
"draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-05".  

draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04 [Section 2.1.6]

   R7:  By default, the path returned by the PCE SHOULD use the

        compressed format.

        The request from the PCC MAY allow the PCC to express a

        preference for receiving a compressed or non-compressed P2MP

        path in the response.

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-05 [Section 3.3.1

   o  E ( ERO-compression bit - 1 bit):

         0: This indicates that the route is not in the compressed

         format.

         1: This indicates that the route is in the compressed format.

The default value 0 should be compressed; bit set 1 should be
not-compressed. 

Kindly resolve and confirm the final decision. 

Thanks & Regards,

Dhruv Dhody

Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.

Bangalore, India

****************************************************************************
***********
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI,
which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed
above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including,
but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or
dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is
prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of JP
Vasseur
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt

Dear WG,

Although the discussion on this ID has been relatively moderate, the
document has been stable for a while and discussed at several WG meetings. 

This starts a 2-week WG Last Call on I-D
Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt.

Please send your comment to the authors and copy the list by Dec 15, noon
ET.

Thanks.

JP and Julien.

---

From: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:50:52 -0000

Hello Dhruv,

Thank you for your comment. I agree that the bit should be swapped so the
PCE sends a compressed format by default. We will update the text
accordingly during our next revision. 

Br, Dan. 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of dhruv
dhody
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:22 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt

Dear Authors, 

I found one inconsistency between the draft “draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04” and
“draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-05”.  

Thanks & Regards,
Dhruv Dhody

________________________________________

Dear WG,

Thanks.

JP and Julien.

---

From: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:51:37 -0000

Hi JP, All, 

As a co-editor of the P2MP Solutions
(draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-05) I would like to state that the
authors of the P2MP Requirements (draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04) added all the
additional requirements that we identified during the development of the
P2MP solutions document. So I believe that the P2MP Requirements document is
in fairly good shape. 

We do however have one outstanding issue regarding the solutions document. I
do not believe this directly impacts the P2MP Requirements document itself,
but it's certainly worth discussing the issue on the list. The P2MP
Requirements draft mentions the requirement for reoptimization of P2MP TE
LSPs:

2.1.10. Reoptimization of P2MP TE LSPs

R11: Reoptimization MUST be supported for P2MP TE LSPs as described for P2P
LSPs in [RFC4657].

<< 

There is a further request in this section that states "that a P2MP Path
Computation Request SHOULD contain a parameter that allows the PCC to
express a cost-benefit reoptimization threshold for the whole LSP as well as
per destination". This seems like a sensible request. After all, why switch
to a new path if the reoptimization request returns a path that's no better,
or even worse, than the existing path?  

We support Objective Functions [RFC5541] in the P2MP Solutions document, and
our solutions allows a path to be computed using a Shortest Path Tree (SPT)
or Minimum Cost Tree (MCT), these will be processed according to the rules
defined in RFC5541, but we do not currently have a "reoptimization
threshold" function. Some of the authors of the P2MP Solution draft think
the reoptimization threshold function is relevant to both P2P and P2MP, and
threshold solution should be applicable to both P2P and P2MP. Therefore the
current P2MP Solutions would state that this requirement will be resolved in
a future document. 

We would really like to hear comments or suggestions regarding the threshold
reoptimization function. Both from the perspective of a future solution that
supports both P2P and P2MP, and/or this feature should be specifically part
of the existing P2MP Solutions draft.

Br, Dan/P2MP Solutions Authors.    

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of JP
Vasseur
Sent: 07 December 2009 19:08
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt

Dear WG,

Thanks.

JP and Julien.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:17:22 +0100

Hi Dan,

On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Daniel King wrote:

> Hi JP, All,
>
> As a co-editor of the P2MP Solutions (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp- 
> extensions-05) I would like to state that the authors of the P2MP  
> Requirements (draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04) added all the additional  
> requirements that we identified during the development of the P2MP  
> solutions document. So I believe that the P2MP Requirements document  
> is in fairly good shape.
>
> We do however have one outstanding issue regarding the solutions  
> document. I do not believe this directly impacts the P2MP  
> Requirements document itself, but it’s certainly worth discussing  
> the issue on the list. The P2MP Requirements draft mentions the  
> requirement for reoptimization of P2MP TE LSPs:
>
> >>
> R11: Reoptimization MUST be supported for P2MP TE LSPs as described  
> for P2P LSPs in [RFC4657].
> <<
>
> There is a further request in this section that states "that a P2MP  
> Path Computation Request SHOULD contain a parameter that allows the  
> PCC to express a cost-benefit reoptimization threshold for the whole  
> LSP as well as per destination". This seems like a sensible request.  
> After all, why switch to a new path if the reoptimization request  
> returns a path that's no better, or even worse, than the existing  
> path?
>
> We support Objective Functions [RFC5541] in the P2MP Solutions  
> document, and our solutions allows a path to be computed using a  
> Shortest Path Tree (SPT) or Minimum Cost Tree (MCT), these will be  
> processed according to the rules defined in RFC5541, but we do not  
> currently have a "reoptimization threshold" function. Some of the  
> authors of the P2MP Solution draft think the reoptimization  
> threshold function is relevant to both P2P and P2MP, and threshold  
> solution should be applicable to both P2P and P2MP. Therefore the  
> current P2MP Solutions would state that this requirement will be  
> resolved in a future document.
>
> We would really like to hear comments or suggestions regarding the  
> threshold reoptimization function. Both from the perspective of a  
> future solution that supports both P2P and P2MP, and/or this feature  
> should be specifically part of the existing P2MP Solutions draft.

Good question and for people having long memories, this was discussed  
almost 5 years ago (!). I had personally advocated for such a solution  
so I'm clearly in favor of it and I also believe that the same  
mechanism should apply to both P2P and P2MP. Of course, there might be  
a need for specific threshold in light of the OF. For example, if we  
end up defining an OF for P2MP according which the objective is to  
minimize the path cost difference between each leaf and the head-end  
(to guaranty fairness delivery for mcast traffic for example), we may  
need a P2MP specific threshold. So let's try to make the threshold  
mechanisms as generic and modular as possible.

Back to your question I would suggest to leave it out from the P2MP  
solution draft and have a separate ID covering both the P2P and P2MP  
threshold solutions.

Thanks.

JP.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf  
> Of JP Vasseur

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:43:31 -0000

Hi,

As I understand this discussion, the resolution is that there is no change 
needed to the P2MP Requirements draft.

So WG last call completed without any changes needed.

Ready to move on?

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]>
To: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt

Hi Dan,

Thanks.

JP.

> Please send your comment to the authors and copy the list by Dec 15,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:25:22 -0000

Hi JP, thanks for the clarifications and suggestions!

Br, Dan. 

From: JP Vasseur [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 17 December 2009 18:17
To: Daniel King
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on I-D Action:draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt

Hi Dan,

Hi JP, All,

We do however have one outstanding issue regarding the solutions document. I
do not believe this directly impacts the P2MP Requirements document itself,
but it’s certainly worth discussing the issue on the list. The P2MP
Requirements draft mentions the requirement for reoptimization of P2MP TE
LSPs:

 

Good question and for people having long memories, this was discussed almost
5 years ago (!). I had personally advocated for such a solution so I'm
clearly in favor of it and I also believe that the same mechanism should
apply to both P2P and P2MP. Of course, there might be a need for specific
threshold in light of the OF. For example, if we end up defining an OF for
P2MP according which the objective is to minimize the path cost difference
between each leaf and the head-end (to guaranty fairness delivery for mcast
traffic for example), we may need a P2MP specific threshold. So let's try to
make the threshold mechanisms as generic and modular as possible.

Back to your question I would suggest to leave it out from the P2MP solution
draft and have a separate ID covering both the P2P and P2MP threshold
solutions.

Thanks.

JP.

 
Dear WG,

 
 
Thanks.
 
JP and Julien.