|
|
1 |
(% class="row" %) |
|
|
2 |
((( |
|
|
3 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-8 test-report-content" %) |
|
|
4 |
((( |
|
|
5 |
---- |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
Bidirectional SR paths are relevant for services that require coordinated control of the forward and reverse directions, for example, to ensure symmetric routing, consistent constraint application, or predictable round-trip behavior. From an operational perspective, treating both directions as a single entity also simplifies lifecycle handling (create/update/delete) and state correlation across the two headends. |
|
|
8 |
draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path defines PCEP procedures to create an “associated bidirectional SR LSP” by grouping two unidirectional SR LSPs (one per direction) using a dedicated LSP association. The draft introduces a new Association Type, “Bidirectional SR LSP Association” (Association Type value 8), and requires both PCEP peers to advertise support for this association type via the ASSOC-Type-List TLV in the OPEN exchange before it is used. |
|
|
9 |
At the time of testing, the draft-specific bidirectional procedures were not supported end-to-end. Therefore, both directions were signaled as standard unidirectional SR LSPs over PCEP, and the bidirectional relationship was maintained by the PCE through internal grouping under a common association context for computation and tracking. In this test, we validated this behavior across multiple interoperability combinations and data planes, including SRv6 with µSIDs and full SIDs, and SR-MPLS. In all runs, a single PCE coordinated two PCC headends, computed the two directions as a paired result under the same constraint set, signaled each direction independently, and verified successful installation and operational state reporting for both directions. |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
[[~[~[Figure 54: Bidirectional Path Computation~>~>image:485744699449737217_SDN-5-1-v2.png~|~|alt="Figure 54" width="550"~]~]>>attach:485744699449737217_SDN-5-1-v2.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
{{container cssClass="tc-role-table"}} |
|
|
14 |
(% class="table-bordered" %) |
|
|
15 |
|=PCE|=PCC |
|
|
16 |
|ZTE ZENIC ONE R22|((( |
|
|
17 |
Keysight IxNetwork, |
|
|
18 |
ZTE ZXR10 M6000-4SE |
|
|
19 |
))) |
|
|
20 |
|ZTE ZENIC ONE R22|((( |
|
|
21 |
HPE MX204, |
|
|
22 |
ZTE ZXR10 M6000-4SE |
|
|
23 |
))) |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
25 |
Table 16: Bidirectional Path Computation - SRv6 µSID |
|
|
26 |
{{/container}} |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
28 |
{{container cssClass="tc-role-table"}} |
|
|
29 |
(% class="table-bordered" %) |
|
|
30 |
|=PCE|=PCC |
|
|
31 |
|ZTE ZENIC ONE R22|((( |
|
|
32 |
Keysight IxNetwork, |
|
|
33 |
ZTE ZXR10 M6000-4SE |
|
|
34 |
))) |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
36 |
Table 17: Bidirectional Path Computation - SRv6 Full SID |
|
|
37 |
{{/container}} |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
39 |
{{container cssClass="tc-role-table"}} |
|
|
40 |
(% class="table-bordered" %) |
|
|
41 |
|=PCE|=PCC |
|
|
42 |
|Nokia Network Services Platform (NSP)|((( |
|
|
43 |
HPE PTX10002-36QDD, |
|
|
44 |
Nokia 7750 SR-1 |
|
|
45 |
))) |
|
|
46 |
|ZTE ZENIC ONE R22|((( |
|
|
47 |
Cisco 8201-24H8FH, |
|
|
48 |
ZTE ZXR10 M6000-4SE |
|
|
49 |
))) |
|
|
50 |
|ZTE ZENIC ONE R22|((( |
|
|
51 |
HPE MX204, |
|
|
52 |
ZTE ZXR10 M6000-4SE |
|
|
53 |
))) |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
55 |
Table 18: Bidirectional Path Computation - SR-MPLS |
|
|
56 |
{{/container}} |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
58 |
(% id="prev-next-links" %) |
|
|
59 |
|[[< Previous>>doc:SR-TE computation and Signaling]]|[[Next ~>>>doc:Flexible Algorithm Discovery and Visualization by a PCE]] |
|
|
60 |
))) |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
62 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-4 test-report-sidebar" %) |
|
|
63 |
((( |
|
|
64 |
{{box}} |
|
|
65 |
{{include reference="Main.EANTC Transport & Cloud Networks Interop Test Report 2026.Sidebar Nav"/}} |
|
|
66 |
{{/box}} |
|
|
67 |
))) |
|
|
68 |
))) |
