Re: [Teas] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)

Aijun Wang <> Fri, 22 January 2021 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E393A0F3A; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:58:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PLFzwki6LUqi; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A1F43A0F41; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clientip- (unknown []) by (HERMES) with SMTP id 234FE280099; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 09:58:32 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by App0025 with ESMTP id 73255c52b35347ba9069753bbf853a43 for; Fri Jan 22 09:58:43 2021
X-Transaction-ID: 73255c52b35347ba9069753bbf853a43
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
From: "Aijun Wang" <>
To: "'Magnus Westerlund'" <>, "'The IESG'" <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, "'Lou Berger'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 09:58:25 +0800
Message-ID: <006b01d6f062$1bdeb610$539c2230$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQK5sqYP2c3RpYpZuhYtKSlk5CClwahtVYfQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 01:58:50 -0000

Hi, Magnus:

Please see the detail response inline [WAJ].
Wish it can address your concern.

Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: <> 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:25 PM
To: The IESG <>
Cc:;;; Lou Berger <>et>;
Subject: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: No Objection

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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I think this whole idea is based on the fact that you can actually have multiple different prefix the traffic based on the network treatment it should have. I think that has very limited applicability unless we are talking a deployment where one target tunnels between in ingress and egress that does traffic classification based on other aspects. Can this assumption about that the IP traffic needs to use different IP addresses with different prefix to get any differential treatment be expanded in the discussion?
[WAJ] The logic of this document is the followings:
1. Different applications have different QoS requirement.
2. Different applications have different IP Prefix.
3. These different IP Prefix needs to find different path to pass within the network.
4. we use the different BGP sessions to advertise these different prefixes, manage the route the nexthop these BGP sessions, then influence the path of these application traffic.
5. Usage scenarios can be found in
6. Using tunnel between the ingress and egress are also possible accomplished under the procedures described in current documents.

Are the above short description address your concerns?