Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Sun, 07 February 2021 03:53 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73283A2F34; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 19:53:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 ZtkOC2wfytwB; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 19:53:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 250C33A2F33; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 19:53:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 6A56CE0ED4BD5F47190E; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 11:53:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 44D006D09EF06907D860; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 11:53:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 1173rD53068413; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 11:53:13 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 11:53:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 11:53:12 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa601f6428d91ea6ad
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202102071153129945093@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB42061AD1E295598F1F2726BDD2BB9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: MN2PR13MB42061AD1E295598F1F2726BDD2BB9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
To: <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Cc: <spring@ietf.org>, <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 1173rD53068413
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/fH8NkuMkqng8EH2Bvzs5g-lkjZs>
Subject: Re: [spring] =?utf-8?q?WG_Adoption_Call_for_draft-dong-spring-sr-for?= =?utf-8?q?-enhanced-vpn?=
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 03:53:32 -0000

Hi WG/authors,




I have to point out that the VTN-ID in draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn is actually the AII in draft-peng-teas-network-slicing, just a new name. That can be seen from the evolution of the historical versions of the these two drafts. 




I draw your attention to draft draft-peng-teas-network-slicing which analyzes in detail the reasons for the introduction of slice identifier (AII) in the network, and maintains the resource partition of each slice and the allocation of SID per AII in the network. All this happened before draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn.




In addition, the idea that multiple slices share the same virtual topology (such as flex-algo) is also copied from draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet, which can significantly reduce the state in the network, especially without maintaining SPT per slice, which means that multiple SIDs per slice can share the forwarding action of SPT per VN and at the same time can do resource guarantee by SID per slice (or slice-id in packet).




Thus, from a purely technical point of view, I see no reason for this document to be adopted. 




Regards,

PSF














原始邮件



发件人:JamesGuichard
收件人:spring@ietf.org;
抄送人:spring-chairs@ietf.org;
日 期 :2021年01月27日 19:47
主 题 :[spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn


_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

 

Dear WG:


 


This message starts a 2 week WG adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn/ ending February 10th 2021.


 


After review of the document please indicate support (or not) for WG adoption to the mailing list and if you are willing to work on the document, please state this explicitly. This gives the chairs an indication of the energy level of people in the working group willing to work on this document. Please also provide comments/reasons for your support (or lack thereof) as this is a stronger way to indicate your (non) support as this is not a vote.


 


Thanks!


 


Jim, Bruno & Joel