[dev] CLI configuration format for the new SR-TE daemon with PCEP

Jeff Tantsura jefftant at gmail.com
Mon Nov 30 22:49:12 UTC 2020


+1 to Olivier’ comments. 

> On Nov 30, 2020, at 11:32 AM, <olivier.dugeon at orange.com> <olivier.dugeon at orange.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello Sebastien,
> 
> After looking to Juniper and Cisco CLI for PCE, I found that Juniper used the "protocol pcep { pce <server_name> { destination-ipv4-address ... }" syntax, and Cisco used the "mpls-traffic pce peer ipv4 address ... " syntax for RSVP and "segment-routing pcc pce address ipv4... " for Segment Routing. Well, it is not because Cisco is using different syntax for the same purpose (certainly not the same developers) that we must do the same error.
> 
> So, instead of 'pcc peer ...' why not using 'peer ...' directly and 'pce' instead of 'pce-peer' when describing the PCE characteristics ?
> 
> Regarding the metric constraints, the 'pcep' tag sound strange for me. Indeed, the same constraints could be applied to a local computation without the need of the PCEP session. So,I would prefer to skip the 'pcep' tag and directly used the metric, objective-function ... tag for the syntax.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Olivier
> 
> Le 18/11/2020 à 18:00, Sebastien Merle a écrit :
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> I am writing on behalf of the developers behind the pull request for the new 
>> experimental daemon pathd. It adds segment routing traffic engeneering policies 
>> and an optional dynamic module for PCEP support to FRR. 
>> 
>> During the review, the question of the CLI configuration format was discussed, 
>> and we wanted to submit the last proposal to be sure the community was agreeing with it. 
>> 
>> Here is a simple but artificially exhaustive example of pathd configuration with 
>> the pcep module enabled: 
>> 
>> ``` 
>> segment-routing 
>>   traffic-eng 
>>     segment-list SL1 
>>       index 10 mpls label 1111 nai node 1.1.1.1 
>>       index 20 mpls label 2222 nai node 2.2.2.2 
>>     ! 
>>     policy color 4 endpoint 10.10.10.4 
>>      name r4 
>>      binding-sid 104 
>>      candidate-path preference 100 name exp41 explicit segment-list SL1 
>>      candidate-path preference 200 name dyn41 dynamic 
>>       bandwidth 1234 
>>       affinity exclude-any 0x01 
>>       pcep metric bound abc 16 
>>       pcep required metric bnc 123 
>>       pcep objective-function mcp msn mll mrup 
>>      ! 
>>     ! 
>>     pcep 
>>       config-group COMMON 
>>         source-address ip 10.10.10.10 
>>         timer keep-alive 50 
>>       ! 
>>       config-group CONF1 
>>         config-group COMMON 
>>         tcp-md5-auth SECRET 
>>         timer keep-alive 30 
>>       ! 
>>       pce-peer PCE1 
>>         config-group COMMON 
>>         address ip 10.10.10.1 
>>         pce-initiated 
>>       ! 
>>       pce-peer PCE2 
>>         config-group CONF1 
>>         address ip 10.10.10.2 
>>         msd 32 
>>         sr-draft07 
>>       ! 
>>       pcc 
>>         peer PCE1 precedence 10 
>>         peer PCE2 precedence 20 
>>       ! 
>>     ! 
>>   ! 
>> ! 
>> ``` 
>> 
>> Some explanation about why the configuration format was chosen: 
>> 
>>  * In the candidate path, the metric and objective function are prefixed with `pcep` because we didn't think this was generic enough for non-pcep candidate path. 
>>  * `config-group` is used to create a hierarchy of pcc/pce configuration so the common configuration does not have to be duplicated in every `pce-peer`. 
>>  * The `pce-peer` are not defined under `pcc` for two reasons: 
>>    1. This works around using vtysh without transaction, where we can't be sure when we have all the configuration to start the pcc. 
>>    2. The idea is to later support per-prefix selection of the PCE: 
>> 
>>      ``` 
>>       pcc 
>>         peer PCE1 precedence 10 
>>         group GROUP1 priority 10 
>>           prefix 4.5.3.0/24 
>>           peer PCE2 precedence 10 
>>           peer PCE1 precedence 20 
>>         ! 
>>         group GROUP2 priority 20 
>>           prefix 4.5.3.0/24 
>>           peer PCE3 precedence 10 
>>           peer PCE1 precedence 20 
>>         ! 
>>       ! 
>>      ``` 
>> 
>> The list of possible commands that can be specified under `config-group` and `pce-peer` is: 
>>  * `sr-draft07` (Enable backward compatibility with segment routing draft07 PCEs) 
>>  * `pce-initiated` (Enable PCE-intitated LSP support) 
>>  * `tcp-md5-auth WORD` 
>>  * `address <ip A.B.C.D | ipv6 X:X::X:X> [port (1024-65535)]` 
>>  * `source-address [ip A.B.C.D | ipv6 X:X::X:X] [port (1024-65535)]` 
>>  * `config-group WORD` 
>>  * `timer [keep-alive (1-63)] [min-peer-keep-alive (1-255)] [max-peer-keep-alive (1-255)] ...` 
>>  * `msd (1-32)` 
>> 
>> Link to the pull request: https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/7351 <https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/7351> 
>> 
>> Thank you very much for your feedback. 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> Sebastien Merle. 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> dev mailing list 
>> dev at lists.frrouting.org <mailto:dev at lists.frrouting.org> 
>> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev <https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev> 
> -- 
> <small_logo.png> <http://www.orange.com/>
>  
> Olivier Dugeon
> Orange Expert, Future Networks 
> Open Source Referent 
> Orange/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/iTeQ
>  
> fixe : +33 2 96 07 28 80
> mobile : +33 6 82 90 37 85
> olivier.dugeon at orange.com <mailto:olivier.dugeon at orange.com>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at lists.frrouting.org
> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.frrouting.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20201130/9c9d1a67/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the dev mailing list