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

Hi, Shaofu,
This document describes the mechanism of reusing BGP-LS Multi-topology TLV and the BGP-LS SR extensions to distribute the intra-domain topology and inter-domain topology attribute and the resource attribute of SR based VTNs. It does not introduce new BGP extensions nor new data plane identifiers. As the document type indicated, this is an informational document. Thus your comments related to VTN ID or NRP ID do not apply here.

Thanks!
Chongfeng

> 2021年12月20日 上午10:21，peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn 写道：
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr