Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks
"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Wed, 04 August 2021 09:48 UTC
Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAEA3A0D78; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 02:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 fSqzcvF0h2UR; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 02:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
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 DFE873A0DA1; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 02:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Gfn4G5L86z6GFfn; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 17:48:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggema769-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.211) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 11:48:44 +0200
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggema769-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 17:48:42 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 17:48:42 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
CC: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org" <draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re:[Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks
Thread-Index: AQHXiCFa8Go/RxcxZUm9cP41ioI3P6tg+ysAgAAYxYCAAKUXoIAASEEAgAETJ6A=
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:48:42 +0000
Message-ID: <19b8d83e227249348826ee9ac1df4311@huawei.com>
References: 53039d56100543d7ae43e9d41ca3fc27@huawei.com, 202108031848550199514@zte.com.cn, 0257c63d9ca746d28a3e0b85d2a02a83@huawei.com <202108040858247256687@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202108040858247256687@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.143]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-9aJCYbAKukKaNc6OgX0WS-V02A>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:48:55 -0000
Hi PSF, I'm afraid this discussion have deviated from the original comments I made on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks. Please see my brief replies inline to conclude this discussion. If you still want to talk about AII further, a separate thread would be a better choice. -Jie > -----Original Message----- > From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn [mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn] > Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 8:58 AM > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> > Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>; teas@ietf.org; > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org > Subject: Re:[Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks > > Hi Dongjie, > > Please see inline [PSF2] > > Regards, > PSF > > > ------------------原始邮件------------------ > 发件人:Dongjie(Jimmy) > 收件人:彭少富10053815;Huzhibo; > 抄送人:teas@ietf.org;draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org; > 日 期 :2021年08月03日 21:05 > 主 题 :RE: Re:[Teas] Some comments on > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks > Hi PSF, > > See inline: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn [mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 6:49 PM > > To: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com> > > Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; teas@ietf.org; > > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org > > Subject: Re:[Teas] Some comments on > > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks > > > > Hi Zhibo, > > > > See in-line [PSF]. > > > > Regards, > > PSF > > > > > > > > ------------------原始邮件------------------ > > 发件人:Huzhibo > > 收件人:彭少富10053815; > > 抄送人:Dongjie > > (Jimmy);teas@ietf.org;draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.or > > g; > > 日 期 :2021年08月03日 17:20 > > 主 题 :RE: [Teas] Some comments on > > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks > > Hi PSF: > > > > Both the VTN and AII identify the underlay of the slice. > > [PSF] that is right. > > > > > > However, the VTN-ID is not used as an identifier of the control plane topology. > > Instead, the topology of the slice is defined by referencing an > > existing multi-topology technology. > > VTN-ID defines the topology and resources of a slice by decoupling the > > topology and resources, which are different from AII. > > [PSF] Whether it is customizing slice's own topology (such as AII) or > > referencing an existing topology (such as VTN-ID), there is a logical > > topology for slice. So VTN-ID is also actually an identifier of > > logical topology. And, both AII and VTN-ID are used to identify > > resouce. So, the smallest difference for AII and VTN-ID is the flavor > > to create the logical topology. Note that draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet > contains both customizing and referencing flavor. > > [Jie] The key difference is that AII reinvents the wheel by defining a new > topology identifier, while VTN refers to the well-defined MT or Flex-Algo for its > topology attribute. This is why VTN allows the decoupling of topology and > resource attributes to provide better scalability, while AII has limitation in the > supported network scale. > > [PSF2] AII is not an IGP topology identifier in a narrow sense, instead, it > represents the logical topology identification of an end-to-end slice, including > the connection of intra/inter domains. Within IGP domian part of an E2E slice, > the flavor of topology can be customized or referenced. Again, the difference > between flavors is not the key to this concept, although the existing IGP > MT/Flex-algo can indeed bring benefits in scalability. Just ask you several > questions: 1) If IGP MT/Flex-algo are not deployed in the IGP domain, how to > build slice ? 2) For inter-domain links, how to use referencing flavor to > distinguish resource of slices ? > [PSF2] So that it is limited to completely rely on IGP/Flex-algo to define the > logical topology of slices. Note again that draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet > contains both customizing and referencing flavors. [Jie] According to draft-peng-teas-network-slicing, AII is a topology identifier, no matter of inter- or intra- domain. And in that document, there is no such thing like "the flavor of topology can be customized or referenced". > > As mentioned in the previous email, the agreement is to find a common > > new term for network slice realization. > > [PSF] Agree, alignment with some new term, but not VTN according to > > Dongjie's original mail. > > [Jie] Apparently you didn't read my mail carefully. Here is what I suggested in my > email: > > > 1. As discussed on the TEAS meeting, the terminologies in several > > drafts related to network slicing realization will be aligned, thus it > > is suggested the terminology in this document also aligns with the > > "new term" to be proposed. > > [PSF2] Thanks for reminding, but the 2nd and 3rd points ... ... [Jie] The 2nd and 3rd comments are not related to the terminology alignment. > > > > -Jie > > > > Best regards, > > Zhibo > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn > > Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 12:37 PM > > To: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com> > > Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; teas@ietf.org; > > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Teas] Some comments on > > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks > > > > Hi Zhibo, > > > > First, when aii was proposed in draft-peng-teas-network-slicing to > > introduce slice identifier to underlay network, it was not good just > > to change its name as vtn-id in redundant draft, for example, just > > open > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-zch-lsr-isis-network-slicing-06. > > txt and > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dong-lsr-sr-enhanced-vpn-06.txt to see > the repeat and overlap. > > Second, SA-ID defined in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet has completely > > covered aii and vtn-id, especially when the mapping of slice and > Slice-Aggregate is 1:1. > > So that there is not any reason for you to continue to update vtn-id > > concept, and even ask other proposals to be alignment with VTN. > > > > Regards, > > PSF > > > > ------------------原始邮件------------------ > > 发件人:Huzhibo > > 收件人:彭少富10053815;Dongjie (Jimmy); > > 抄送人:draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org;teas@ietf.org; > > 日 期 :2021年08月02日 20:21 > > 主 题 :RE: Re:[Teas] Some comments on > > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks > > Hi PSF, > > The discussion Jie referred to was the about the terminology alignment > > between VTN, Slice Aggregate, etc. in several active network slice > > related drafts. With the "merging" of draft-peng-teas-network-slicing > > into draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet, it is not clear whether the term > > "AII" has been totally replaced by "Slice Aggregate", or you still plan to work > on it separately? > > After the discussion among the authors of several drafts, the > > agreement is to find a common new term for network slice realization, > > so that those drafts could refer to that new term. This is also what > > we suggested to the authors of draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks for > better terminology alignment. > > Best regards, > > Zhibo > > -----Original Message----- > > From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn [mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn] > > Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 5:39 PM > > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> > > Cc: draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org > > Subject: Re:[Teas] Some comments on > > draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks > > Hi Dongjie, > > Seeing that you openly mention VTN-ID, I have to remind you again that > > the VTN-ID is just the A-I-I of draft-peng-teas-network-slicing which > > analyzes the necessity of introducing slice identifier into underlay > > network. I believe you never thought about dealing with the overlap of > > VTN-ID and A-I-I, so how can you ask other drafts to do so? > > Again, you may say that the A-I-I related scheme described by > > draft-peng-teas-network-slicing has scalability problems ... ... so > > that VTN-ID is not A-I-I... ... > > Regards, > > PSF > > ------------------原始邮件------------------ > > 发件人:Dongjie(Jimmy) > > 收件人:draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org; > > 抄送人:TEAS WG; > > 日 期 :2021年08月02日 17:07 > > 主 题 :[Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks > > _______________________________________________ > > Teas mailing list > > Teas@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > Hi authors, > > Thanks for the presentation in the TEAS session in last week. Here are > > some comments on this draft: > > 1. As discussed on the TEAS meeting, the terminologies in several drafts > > related to network slicing realization will be aligned, thus it is > > suggested the terminology in this document also aligns with the "new > > term" to be proposed. > > 2. As this document lists the SR technologies which can be used for > > network slice realization in SR networks, the suggestion is it should > > also describe and reference draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments > > and draft-ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn which specifies the > > extensions to SR segments and the mechanisms to provide SR based VTNs. > > 3. Section 8 of this document describes the "stateless network slice ID" > > concept and the mechanisms with different data planes. The general > > mechanism of introducing dedicated VTN identifier in data packet for > > per-VTN packet processing was described in > > draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability, thus there is some > > overlap in this part which needs to be solved in future versions. > > Best regards, > > Jie
- [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… Huzhibo
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… Huzhibo
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring… peng.shaofu