Re: [Idr] draft-xie-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-03.txt - Call for WG adoption: 12/18/2021 to 1/7/2022

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Mon, 20 December 2021 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB7F3A0B6B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 18:21:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HJHORks0cVOk for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 18:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6C083A0B66 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 18:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4JHNcx3rhnz7R0HW; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:21:37 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1BK2LHbT058366; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:21:17 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:21:17 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:21:17 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb61bfe89dd2605b23
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202112201021172457127@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <009501d7f42c$e1bcbca0$a53635e0$@ndzh.com>
References: 009501d7f42c$e1bcbca0$a53635e0$@ndzh.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 1BK2LHbT058366
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 61BFE8B1.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1639966897/4JHNcx3rhnz7R0HW/61BFE8B1.000/10.30.14.238/[10.30.14.238]/mse-fl1.zte.com.cn/<peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 61BFE8B1.000/4JHNcx3rhnz7R0HW
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TSZ9GwspBpgqVwSkbxxTY8kzI34>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-xie-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-03.txt - Call for WG adoption: 12/18/2021 to 1/7/2022
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 02:21:45 -0000

Hi Sue,

So far, VTN identifier mentioned in this draft is a very controversial thing. When the authors of VPN+ proposed the term VTN-ID, similar term, AII, has already existed and already discussed the details of resource partition. AII is defined in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peng-teas-network-slicing-04.txt and now it is renamed as NRP-ID according to the latest network slice framwork (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices/). 
So, does IDR WG want to standardize multiple similar identifiers (NRP-ID, VTN-ID, ...) or a single unified identifier that is just VTN-ID ?

Regards,
PSF

------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人:SusanHares
收件人:idr@ietf.org;
日 期 :2021年12月19日 00:33
主 题 :[Idr] draft-xie-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-03.txt - Call for WG adoption: 12/18/2021 to 1/7/2022
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

This begins a WG Adoption call for draft-xie-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-03.txt from 12/18 2021 to 1/7/2022.  The longer period is due to the Holiday/New Year time period.
The draft can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt/
While reviewing the document consider the following questions:
1)  Does this informational draft aid operation of 5G networks for new applications?
New 5G services require stringent  performance requirements for applications.  This information draft describes how to use existing segment routing (SR)
mechanisms to allow a centralized control to allocate a set of  virtual transport networks (VTNs) which are resource aware.  Isolation between resources for multi-AS transport may be necessary to protect the application.
Intra-domain:
a) Uses MT-ID which identifies 1 or more ISIS/OSPF topologies.
[drafts referenced:  draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext,  draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
b) New VTN-ID which specifies resources associated with each VTN
[draft referenced: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt]
Inter-Domain mechanisms used include:
a) Isolation of certain VTNs to specific inter-domain links or BGP peers,
b) consistent use of MT-ID across multiple domains or use of VTN-ID TLV
VTN-ID TLV is a bgp-ls TLV that specifies unique set of resources per VTN.
[existing WG drafts referenced: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe, draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext, draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis]
New drafts referenced: draft-dong-idr-bgpls-sr-enhanced-vpn-03.txt]
2) Should IDR recommend the global VTN-ID?
The MT-ID is not an IANA registered named space.  VTN-ID is proposed as a global name space, but does not have any proposed IANA registry text.  Should VTN-ID become a register global name space that identifies a set of MT-IDs and other resources?
Cheers, Sue