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, 4 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>om>; 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>om>; 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>om>; 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