Hi Dan
I have written the following text to address the general question of manageability of different LSP Setup types and plan to include it in the next revision of this draft. Please let me know if you have any comments.
NEW (insert before “Security Considerations” section)
6. Manageability Considerations
This document generalises PCEP to allow path setup methods other than RSVP-TE to be used by the network. It is possible that, in a given network, multiple path setup methods will be used. It is also possible that not all devices will support the same set of path setup methods. Managing networks that combine multiple path setup methods may therefore raise some challenges from a configuration and observability point of view.
Each document that introduces a new path setup type to PCEP must include a manageability section. The manageability section must explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type. It must address the following questions, which are generally applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP.
- What are the criteria for when devices will use the new path setup type in PCEP, and how can the operator control this?
- How can the network be migrated to the new path setup type, and are there any backwards compatibility issues that operators need to be aware of?
- Are paths set up using the new path setup type intended to coexist with other paths over the long term and, if so, how is this situation managed with PCEP?
- How can operators verify the correct operation of PCEP in the network with respect to the new path setup type? Which fault conditions must be reported to the operators?
- Are there any existing management interfaces (such as YANG models) that must be extended to model the operation of PCEP in the network with respect to the new path setup type?
See [RFC 6123] for further guidance on how to write manageability sections in PCEP standards-track documents.
END NEW
+ [RFC 6123] is added as an informative reference.
Many thanks
Jon
From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:dromasca@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 03 March 2018 10:57
To: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com >
Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; pce@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type.all@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.
com > wrote:Hi Dan
Many thanks for the review. Please see my replies below - look for "Jon>".
Best regards
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:dromasca@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 February 2018 15:23
To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: pce@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type.all@xxxxxxxx ; dromasca@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Has Issues
I am the assigned OPS-DIR reviewer for this draft. The OPS DIrectorate reviews a great part of the IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the OPS ADs.
Please treat with these comments as with all other IETF LC comments. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
This document is an extension of PCEP to allow for other LSP setup methods than RSVP-TE to be used. For this purpose it defines two new TLVs and details their operation.
This is an extension of an existing protocol. An RFC 5706 review applies.
While the document seems to be focused to developers and implementers of PCEP, it is not clear what is the impact from an operational point of view and there are no considerations related to manageability. Maybe these are detailed in other documents - in this case a reference would be useful.
Jon> The context of this draft is that it generalizes PCEP so that the protocol is not dependent solely on using RSVP-TE as a method for setting up paths. The document performs this generalization, positioning RSVP-TE as one possible method of path setup, but it stops short of defining any other path setup methods. Since no new path setup methods are being introduced, the manageability and operational considerations do not really change. We have simply generalized a part of PCEP to allow other path setup methods (and their manageability considerations) to be defined elsewhere.
Here are a few issues. For a complete list of questions, see Annex A in RFC 5706.
1. Why were these extensions needed? Do they improve efficiency? Are there classes of devices that do not support RSVP-TE and need the new methods?
Jon> This is a pre-requisite step to allow PCEP to be used in networks that use segment routing to define paths. Segment routing (SR) is a distinct path setup method from RSVP-TE. It is possible that SR devices might not support RSVP-TE. The WG took the decision to write one draft to generalize PCEP (this draft) and then to write a separate draft to explain how this generalization is applied to segment routing (draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing). The latter draft is post-WGLC in the PCE WG and should be catching up with draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type shortly. Why did we not combine draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type and draft-ietf-pce-segment- routing? Suppose we invent a third path setup type in future. It is clearer for implementers that they only need to implement the procedures of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type in order to prepare the ground for this third path setup type - having one combined draft incorporating SR as well would make this harder.
It would be good to describe all these in a paragraph of text, for folks in the future, and for those who did not follow closely the discussions and work assignments in the WG.
2. How are the new TLVs going to be deployed and managed? Does an operator have the option of selecting one LSP setup method or the other? How and what are the criteria of selections?
3. There is no discussion about initial setup and configuration. Are there any initial configuration parameters? If yes, how are they set up?
4. Are there any backwards compatibility and migration path issues operators should be aware about?
5. What is the expected impact on network operation?
6. How is correct operation visible to the operators? Are there any fault conditions that need to be reported to operators?
7. Are there any existing management interfaces (e.g. YANG models) that need to be defined or extended?
Jon> I think the above points 2..7 are really good questions to be asking about each new path setup type that we introduce. In a draft that is agnostic of path setup type, I don't really know how to answer them. For example, I would expect draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing to answer these questions in the context of configuring and enabling PCEP for segment routing. Do you think that there is something we can usefully say about working with multiple path setup types in general?
I am writing this review from the operational and manageability perspective. Managing networks that combine multiple path setup methods may raise some challenges from a configuration and observability point of view. If there are issues that are deferred to other documents, it would be good to mention this in a short paragraph, and provide a reference. I think that Benjamin also suggested something on these lines.
Thanks for addressing my comments and for your answers.
Regards,
Dan
Hi Jon,
This looks very good and addresses my concerns. Thanks for the dialog and for the responsiveness. On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
