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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 03 March 2021 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 0A5643A1B4B for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 22:51:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 DqXDWmbz2cEC for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 22:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8406B3A19DB for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 22:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Dr4Kb6d0Bz67vQh for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:46:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.32) by fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 07:50:56 +0100
Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.39) by fraeml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 07:50:56 +0100
Received: from DGGEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.177]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0509.000; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:50:53 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?V0cgQWRvcHRpb24gUG9sbCBmb3Ig4oCcVXNpbmcgSVMtSVMgTXVsdGktVG9w?= =?utf-8?B?b2xvZ3kgKE1UKSBmb3IgU2VnbWVudCBSb3V0aW5nIGJhc2VkIFZpcnR1YWwg?= =?utf-8?B?VHJhbnNwb3J0IE5ldHdvcmvigJ0gLSBkcmFmdC14aWUtbHNyLWlzaXMtc3It?= =?utf-8?Q?vtn-mt-03?=
Thread-Index: AdcP9859L0QovIojRmSkhOYvcuc8wg==
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 06:50:53 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADE0CA1C@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.123.117]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADE0CA1Cdggeml511mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/hZ-RX4Rvw-6WOaOeYtjVyTu_AWI>
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: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 06:51:01 -0000

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,

In addition, I also recommend you to reference RFC8413 for resource definition.



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.


-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