Re: [Teas] 答复: WG adoption poll: draft-dong-teas-nrp-scalability-02

Hi Aijun,

Thanks for your support and comments. 

Please see some replies inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 12:00 PM
> To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
> Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Teas] 答复: WG adoption poll: draft-dong-teas-nrp-scalability-02
> 
> Hi, All:
> 
> I support its adoption.
> Regarding to the discussion about identifier in the data plane, I think the NRP
> ID is enough, no need to slice/aggregate slice identifier. Or else, the network
> nodes will be required to keep the per-flow/flow-aggregate state again.  The
> ingress node should accomplish the mapping between slice/slice aggregate
> with the NRP ID.  If some other nodes want to distinct behavior for some
> slice/aggregate slices, then this node itself should be configured by additional
> policy.
> The analysis for the control plane and data plane optimization are useful for
> the design of future control plane/data plane solutions.
> 
> The main concerns for such direction from mine is that creation, protection
> and management of such amounts of NRP. If the network is divided into so
> many slices, how to assure the network is utilized efficiently if the resource
> that reserved by one NRP will/can not be used/occupied by other NRP ID?

I understand your concern is about the resource utilization of NRP. This is related to the mechanisms used for the resource planning and allocation to NRPs, and how the resource are managed and updated. This is out of the scope of this document, while I agree it worth further discussion in the WG.

> 
> One nits within the draft, should the description in
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dong-teas-nrp-scalability-02.html#sect
> ion-4.1.1:
> "Figure 2 gives an example of two NRPs which share the same logical
> topology. As shown in the figure, NRP-1 and NRP-2 are associated with the
> same topology" should be Figure 1, and
> 
> "Figure 3 gives another example of two NRPs which have different logical
> topologies, while share the same set of network resources on a subset of the
> links." Should be Figure 2 instead.

Thanks for catching the nits. We will fix them in next update.

Best regards,
Jie

> 
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: teas-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Lou
> Berger
> 发送时间: 2022年6月16日 19:47
> 收件人: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> 抄送: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
> 主题: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-dong-teas-nrp-scalability-02
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-teas-nrp-scalability/
> 
> Please note that IPR has been disclosed on this document:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-dong-teas-nr
> p
> -scalability
> 
> Please voice your support or objections to adoption on the list by the end of
> the day (any time zone) July 1.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou (as Co-chair)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas