[Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 03 October 2019 05:15 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0A7120227; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 22:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, teas-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.104.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <157007970187.8856.4833550865466096492.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 22:15:01 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Qg8rW5HU6BnuB_SYj2yZgf2JWOg>
Subject: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 05:15:02 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have two points for discussion: (1) If this document was subject to the approval requirements for standards action, it would basically be suffering from "death by abstain"; this seems like a good signal for the IESG to discuss whether it makes sense to approve this document even though the more-lenient document-action requirements would otherwise let it go forward. (2) The document seems incomplete to me. It has some aspects of being all/any of a use-cases document, an architecture document, and an applicability analysis, but does not seem to have a complete treatment for any of them. To be clear, there is enough in the document to indicate that the topic merits further work, and there are some interesting results, but I'm not sure that publication as an RFC is appropriate for this document in this form. Specifically: (2a) use-cases: we see the examples of star topology with BRAS/SR and the simulated network in Figure 6, but there is not much discussion of where these (or similar) scenarios arise in practice, how common they are, and how closely the simulation reflects actual usage. (2b) architecture: a very high-level picture is given ("use a PCE to engineer some of the IP traffic on a network and improve overall efficiency"), but we don't see much about how PCCs will be involved and apply the computed paths or what requirements will need to be met by the protocols and components used to instantiate the architecture (2c) applicability: we see some scenarios where the proposed technology shows drastic improvement over the alternative selected for comparison, but there is little to give confidence that this reflects a broad maxima that is robust to environmental variations. Is the alternative selected for comparison an appropriate one for the cases in question? How would the propsal react in the face of changes in the environment it runs in, such as link or node failure, changes in the baseline usage, or traffic spikes? What timescale can it react in and what level of visibility does the PCE need into current conditions in order to be reliable? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If we're using a PCE in a native IP network, how do the computed routes get applied; are we using source routing or just being careful about the prefixes in use? (Are there going to be any scaling concerns?) Section 3.1 I don't understand what Figure 1 is intending to convey. Are "Private Cloud Site" and "Public Cloud Site" supposed to be separate boxes on the edge of the distributed control network? Why is the "Cloud Based Application" in neither of the named clouds? Section 3.2 Network topology within a Metro Area Network (MAN) is generally in a star mode as illustrated in Figure 2, with different devices "Generally" within what scope, commercial ISPs? I know of things that could be called MANs that use a different topology. Section 4.1 nit: several sentences are missing spaces after the full stop. Section 4.2 Is a fully-linked core of 100 nodes representative of typical deployments? That's a lot of links not going to customers! Section 4.3 The traffic matrix is generated based on the link capacity of topology. [...] I don't know how to interpret this statement. It does sound like the traffic matrix is generated in a somewhat arbitrary fashion, with no stated effort to keep it aligned with real-world traffic patterns.
- [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-tea… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk
- [Teas] 答复: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Aijun Wang