1 / 11

Stateful PCE - update

Stateful PCE - update. draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-05 draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initated-lsp-02. Ina Minei Ed Crabbe Jan Medved Robert Varga Siva Sivabalan. Common updates to both drafts . Use a request ID to allow correlation of events and errors

thalia
Download Presentation

Stateful PCE - update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stateful PCE - update draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-05 draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initated-lsp-02 Ina Minei Ed Crabbe Jan Medved Robert Varga Siva Sivabalan

  2. Common updates to both drafts • Use a request ID to allow correlation of events and errors • Introduction of the SRP (Stateful PCE Request Parameters) Object • Specification of procedures for event correlation • Specify a state cleanup mechanism for removal of PCE state after a PCEP session failure (introduction of the State Timeout Interval) • Error reporting cleanup to allow easy correlation and communication of RSVP signaling errors

  3. Base draft – draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-05

  4. Base draft updates • Address comments received during the last IETF • Very productive meetings in Orlando • Terminology cleanup • Stateful PCE, active, passive, etc • LSP-ID renamed PLSP-ID to avoid confusion with RSVP notation • Delegation vs re-delegation – to clarify operation after failure

  5. Base draft updates • LSP state synchronization PCC-PCE • Explicit end of synchronization • Support for PCE-requested resynchronization with the PCC • Clarification of the re-delegation procedures and state cleanup • Discussion on operation with redundant PCE and re-delegation • Description of make-before-break • Cleanup of error reporting and error generation • Remove support of path-list in report and update messages

  6. Base draft updates • Add the LSP signaling type to the LSP object for extensibility (RSVP is the default) • Clean up reporting of the operational state • Support reporting of multiple operational states • LSP identifiers TLV move to the base draft – common to both MPLS and GMPLS • Clean up the LSP error code TLV and RSVP error spec TLVs - generic support for both MPLS-TE and GMPLS

  7. Base draft updates • General structure • Base draft • Technology specific drafts • GMPLS - draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-02 • MPLS-TE - draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te-01. As part of the cleanup of error reporting and making the document generic, the content from this document moved to the base draft – no MPLS-TE specific extensions needed at this point • Implementation status • At least two vendors working on implementations, early versions available in shipping code from at least one vendor.

  8. Base draft - next steps • Duplication of use causes some confusion • Remove the use cases from the base draft after the adoption of draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app as a working group document • Incorporate comments received on the list since posting version 05 • Already in progress • Please review the changes from the previous versions

  9. PCE-initiated LSP draft – draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-02

  10. PCE-initiated LSP draft updates • Rename PCCreate to PCInitiate • Instantiation and deletion are both handled through PCInitiate messages (instead of PCCreate and PCupd) • The SRP object is mandatory and provides correlation of events and errors. • Error handling similar to the base draft • State cleanup is handled similarly with the base draft (the lsp-cleanup TLV is removed)

  11. Next steps • At least two vendors working on implementations • Multiple drafts depend on this draft • Please review the updated document

More Related