Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com> Thu, 04 March 2021 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B34A3A0C4E for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 18:53:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <GSl9Qvh6Ra_2>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxmail.com
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 GSl9Qvh6Ra_2 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 18:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qq.com (out162-62-57-64.mail.qq.com [162.62.57.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 961383A0C4C for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 18:53:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foxmail.com; s=s201512; t=1614826412; bh=iuHj5iAXZo0wuSPoiUt16omdsRtpwmURIHxlAgiKLKs=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References; b=vu+ek/b3eYI+OlitsnWzIfNfvJ0gToTTkKGWMCQmjqG0QsXK5uh6x07s91BM1rr0v qPekh7xrwQKolsMdiYOmMwfjhEamJpU01l698NNEBsWOL57WnMpPSmOicjadLmqJ5w 5LfazhgQ5wDpZ7JUh3H2/PWL0ac/TMUuw42sQhn4=
Received: from DESKTOP-UGG3TED ([219.142.69.75]) by newxmesmtplogicsvrsza9.qq.com (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id D56A2ACF; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 10:53:22 +0800
X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1614826402tgp5z0o1i
Message-ID: <tencent_9E85E3F92AD7BE80771CB3663CB1F995DB08@qq.com>
X-QQ-XMAILINFO: OE3tIrIEWSq4lVWM+KFo2bVmxU+7ZDOD2usAliCDLyM+z+1r98oA4nEbb6CW+T oeRSWaIGgUS3SrjITOQxWuoOFLKYp7vOb7GlX/lowoK2IXpiqxtURxrzWXCjJhTPrstp9ZAszRa0 tp6519vbsJ1NNNFqdLOjSiR6G+UjhGp29CMT7mcTIJZrmUgbmFZ01odbCHjKv7XQWaTeEmlaeYNK cziNPIRBY4lOR+0QKFL5AzY591tugdiF9Rwo4cVn+Z4QwiOoxIlhfBZJOSFlj7JSUloPxuoYlgfa mj7s90SDWsG/VOFuo6OYP45Jd5T6JNVjT4NH2IivhJrLSYR9Cg5tbZ/BsVPJZLIIxDb6pJM/2QGR TtLFyRbfFywGz8h8apA/OkAHCdymuJu+BxNXFmpuSQTGU00/T3hDq8iuyAUAsmiByNHqZLhVPIED y/8z4ftJqwCxUKK1IRG+wFDRhXoUnzc9miPwVD7xlx3E9fiqKvvo1V3BbqMQGiftyr7ZwdVedZh9 X42OoqCx0h9xzc0ebs8yy/syUhJGpysi5EFsnkrrPXJC3g90LJrj02nP3CXDosJQJLTboHRlBuy3 SwROFHZ4pa3igCZOysf3bZHcsrXQSFNy50Y+03maMTmBXSZF+dP5/3JZeWp317qu9oSXB3g4/j3X 4HkE9kItDh6pAawjB1XjM0TfGGFuVlrTHr4C27lm8Ch6R0QnQraZDjGv8WewswTCBzCrsdpPedEg 56uHiDBgEWgKOSqTO6fy3Pf/6Ah/yk/oVDZwXgKNMB3tvmso4lCe+X9s2Lw3CXYNmVk5oGSUYQhu M7GRyrM6+DXSPHMSV1v0bfHpUmUGh1O9iF8IuOqFGcre2lRyZEQ0LhaABDvKOs+xaMQpvoKGXwJs zM2d4euQULxjDq+OqqBe1RmL5thSfB9KbdGE10KJoP+puu6jyazAI=
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:53:23 +0800
From: "Chongfeng Xie" <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "Acee Lindem \(acee\)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADE0CA1C@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: ABA8FC0B-C864-43D4-A7AD-D0CB6F9D7CDA
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.18.111[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2021030410532182058739@foxmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart644073223626_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/DT538YMntutGbt53VTWVecYd8eM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?WG_Adoption_Poll_for_=E2=80=9CUsing_IS-IS_Multi-?= =?utf-8?q?Topology_=28MT=29_for_Segment_Routing_based_Virtual_Transport_N?= =?utf-8?q?etwork=E2=80=9D_-_draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03?=
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 02:53:42 -0000

Hi, Qin,
 
Thanks a lot for your support. Please see some replies inline:

Chongfeng 



chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com
 
发件人: Qin Wu
发送时间: 2021-03-03 14:50
收件人: Acee Lindem (acee); lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr]WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
Hi,
I have read this draft and It is well written and I support adoption of this work.
Here are a few comments and suggestions:
1.       What is VTN resource, how do we define network resource, is the resource a.       the label that is switched on the path of the LSP, b.       is the resource physical resource assigned to LSP?c.       Is the resource a measure of the capacity of a link that is dedicated for use by the traffic on the LSP.d.       Is the resource referred to node or link in the network topology?Would it be great to provide VTN resource definition in the terminology section,[Chongfeng] The resource in this context is the forwarding resources (e.g. bandwidth and the associated buffer/queuing and scheduling resources). For detailed description about the resources allocated to VTN, please refer to draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments and draft-ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn.
In addition, I also recommend you to reference RFC8413 for resource definition. [Chongfeng] Thanks for the pointer, we will take a look at it.2.       Section 2 said:“The MT-specific Link or Prefix TLVs are defined by adding additional two bytes, which includes 12-bit MT-ID field in  front of the ISN TLV and IP or IPv6 Reachability TLVs.”
Does this require protocol extension? Are these two bytes reserved fields?  Where MT-ID is defined? In which RFC? Also ISN TLV, IP/Ipv6 Reachablity TLV, where these TLVS are defined? Please provide references.

[Chongfeng] As this is an informational draft, there is no new TLV defined. The MT-ID based TLVs are defined in RFC 5120. The ISN TLV and the IP Reachablity TLV is defined in RFC 5305, are the IPv6  Reachablity is defined in RFC 5308. We could add some references and pointers to make it clearer. 
 
-Qin Wu
发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee)
发送时间: 2021年3月3日 7:28
收件人: lsr@ietf.org
主题: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
 
This information draft describes how MT could be used for VTN segmentation. The authors have asked for WG adoption. 
 
This begins a three week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03. I’m giving it three weeks due to the IETF next week. Please register your support or objection on this list prior to the end of the adoption poll on 3/24/2020. 
 
Thanks,
Acee