Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN draft
Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 December 2023 06:15 UTC
Return-Path: <ketant.ietf@gmail.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 7917AC14F68B; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 22:15:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uk_w01kgjuf1; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 22:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63EF7C14F68A; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 22:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-552fba34d69so3457064a12.3; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 22:15:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1702966503; x=1703571303; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=68ZCQFGcbMRN9fRtk58F4xYDu/SXpG2Z+lI2quGoYUk=; b=JKtOT84/n6gT3tkODMAdDV/avV34oarwX0gxsMT3NBH/OShf4nUAoRFKmm4nf8Vbnp d+0ztcxvJrJSnUuoB7PAq8q2fzZxXl83yEoaws7kTHrMiwp52ZTa4vnd7Y1qTk/JlCF0 3RpcYNrWlq7bWcebfimQ44g5ozTZul1sMN+H1n0441xDfvIieJbrz9QKRtCGKtvspOux D9Dh0vIcm1iIHn+nllWrcsyhWz/W4AMzAcbggScztua1h6kGZ06O2WfWGq/AJqroLleP 9Jlnm0WKwXfr/EbqRHdDRV558xy01g+dUOR8Gaozbj+JFJPGmHuHBm9YbBIlQ7Ooq7VE W5fw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702966503; x=1703571303; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=68ZCQFGcbMRN9fRtk58F4xYDu/SXpG2Z+lI2quGoYUk=; b=EUHsPnNEnkQksVr4jts+YAS0v1CvTAvGMYstBqNNINJr2U4rmYVxiQV8Sq4mvYBbww 6mBNGkW5iLUGhkv8rGmlgfoQnIRWnZf1NG2RJHs/BSNVSGLFWYTsX8O5/0151ERRIzzL C1+yPvCWuGWBwn9v6MxmlCuioaHTZv0c1hggIrlXIE6nIgWkNrFEkf7waaX0clG4qyl3 9cX0TA96tpIeRX4k3egJpG2cbRwm8TXCOtLnYW2FsfOSzRjr1bfSwR+9jP1Gu44BlLij Di6BkH2G5jWe2Z5n25vikVQ1h8HZhcKfKjliTtnNSHEpF6oBXXUUfRJxRcCWMtqx2jR6 uFTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxIRxlH38z+j+Zfign9wD+n61jgtEQKXkNTpGy665lpKnPxJR0+ AuL9ffrph3J/w8PS62lTGh0J5KbmjsS3NRPI/do=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFaYl6F+IwEjR16Fg14rAqUAtwpENlNvIsS57bYrU8fCGAIzlwlNk97PxBO9gPqcz1czRks8eDznlSSSB1IXKc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:518d:b0:a23:7625:4cd3 with SMTP id y13-20020a170906518d00b00a2376254cd3mr196223ejk.142.1702966502499; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 22:15:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <55869872481d41c8b3daa1c2fddb54d2@huawei.com> <CA+RyBmWxw-5dTna48C7dmDwk3m5_PUDRdbAJxx3B868efbQnug@mail.gmail.com> <cb3de6fd03514f6faed0c06dabcbecf6@huawei.com> <CA+RyBmUFJXY8f=+9_8-E8r04Mpo7woDq_oQpNv5kvi2LRTZuQQ@mail.gmail.com> <0f0a8dcfb03943e086f4104492b0df58@huawei.com> <CAH6gdPxQaNTWSJnhCkoysbgTBANjAa3ez0CJkLGO4a8wkfjPZw@mail.gmail.com> <492f64a14f0b4951a82f3aa951641c72@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <492f64a14f0b4951a82f3aa951641c72@huawei.com>
From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 11:44:50 +0530
Message-ID: <CAH6gdPzLu+44LjJkEWRV2Crfy5GwGNUoVwU_8Vx2zg5OHZK6Jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000722bd4060cd6c9c0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/TqaWHIhHyPaL76fS8LKnduVpdxI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN draft
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 06:15:08 -0000
Hi Jie, MPLS, SRv6, LDP/RSVP, etc. are all mechanisms using which NRP can be realized. "Enhanced VPN" uses the NRP framework and hence I thought that NRP-based VPN is perhaps a better technical term. Just as BGP MPLS VPN was perhaps a correct technical term. End customers will ask for VPN service with whatever brand name that their service providers will come up with. I don't think we should worry about those marketing names ? ;-) In any case, I think it is best to leave it to the chairs and the IESG to arrive at a suitable choice of terminology during the review and publication process. Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 9:01 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > > > Thanks for your review and reply. It seems you are OK with other changes > in this version, except the terms enhanced VPN vs NRP-based VPN. > > > > I believe that is because we are looking at this term from different > perspectives. What you suggest is a term from the realization point of > view, similar terms are MPLS VPN, SRv6 VPN, LDP/RSVP based VPN etc. While > the term “enhanced VPN” is from the service experience point of view, which > should be technology agnostic. Customers used to ask for a VPN service > without requiring to use LDP or RSVP, similarly they could ask for an > enhanced VPN service, without being bothered with how the enhanced VPN is > delivered. > > > > It would be great if we can firstly converge on the perspective from which > this term should be defined. > > > > And I fully agree with you to not hold this document on this terminology > issue, so it is time to ask the WG chairs for guidance about the next > steps. > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* Ketan Talaulikar [mailto:ketant.ietf@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 19, 2023 12:25 AM > *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> > *Cc:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; teas@ietf.org; > teas-chairs@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN draft > > > > Hi Jie, > > > > I had suggested NRP-based VPNs because these "enhanced VPNs" require NRP > for their realization and that is what brings the "enhancements" from > "traditional" VPNs. Right? > > > > The problem with use of a generic "enhanced" term is that VPN service has > been continuously enhanced over the decades and this process will continue. > Therefore instead of saying "enhanced" using a term that indicates what > that enhancement is would be more meaningful. > > > > That said, I will leave this terminology discussion to the WG and then to > our ADs/IESG. > > > > If there is no consensus in the WG to change or not to change, we should > not (IMHO) hold this document over this terminology issue. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:58 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong= > 40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Thanks for your further comments on the terminology. > > > > Personally I don’t think we need the term “connectivity service VPN”, as > connectivity is just the service an normal VPN would provide, and as you > said there is no definition of “connectivity service VPN”. Introducing > such a new term does not add value to this document IMO. > > > > And since TE or RSVP-TE is just one approach to provide the underlay for > enhanced VPN, “VPN-TE” is not generic enough to describe this type of > service without limiting the realization technologies. > > > > Thus unless people propose a better term, my suggestion is to stay with “enhanced > VPN” as the term for this service. > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 28, 2023 4:53 AM > *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> > *Cc:* teas@ietf.org; teas-chairs@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN draft > > > > Hi Jie, > > thank you for the clarification. That helps a lot. I would propose two > additional updates in the terminology used in the draft that, in my > opinion, could help a reader: > > - Instead of "conventional VPN" refer to "connectivity service VPN". > Although I cannot find the definition of "connectivity service VPN, it > seems easier to understand compared to the existing term. > - Use VPN-TE, analogous to LSP-TE, in place of "enhanced VPN". As > we've agreed, RSVP-TE is a well-established technology that can already be > used to provide VPN-based services that conform to a variety of performance > metrics. > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:21 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> > wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Thanks for showing your support to the terminology update. > > > > Regarding the “conventional VPN” service, as mentioned in my previous > mail, it is just a connectivity service. Traffic engineering (TE) is > technology used in the underlay network, though it may be used in > delivering VPN services, it is considered that TE is not an integral piece > of the “conventional VPN” service. > > > > This document says “This document describes a framework for using > existing, modified, and potential new technologies as components to provide > VPN+ services”. Thus RSVP-TE could also be considered as one candidate > technology for delivering enhanced VPN service. > > > > Section 7.2 also gives some analysis about the scalability of RSVP-TE when > used to provide enhanced VPN service. > > > > Hope this helps to solve your question. > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, November 27, 2023 5:24 AM > *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> > *Cc:* teas@ietf.org; teas-chairs@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN draft > > > > Hi Jie, > > thank you for the detailed update. I greatly appreciate that the authors > kindly considered our discussion at IETF-118. I welcome all the proposed > steps to tighten the terminology, but it seems like I still have a question > about the interpretation of "enhanced VPN". Here are my thoughts: > > - An enhanced VPN is characterized in Abstract as " > > leverages the VPN and Traffic Engineering (TE) technologies and > > adds characteristics that specific services require beyond those > > provided by conventional VPNs. > > > - Next, I look at what can be characterized as "a conventional VPN". > It looks like there are two technologies - Best Effort and Traffic > Engineering, with the latter using RSVP-TE LSP. Would you agree? > - If my understanding of the "conventional VPNs" is accurate and it > already includes TE, in which regard the proposed solution is enhancing the > well-established technology? > > I appreciate your thoughts and welcome others to share their views. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 6:27 PM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong= > 40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear WG, > > > > As discussed in the IETF 118 meeting, we are updating the Enhanced VPN > draft to make two changes: > > > > 1. To make the work more consistent with the network slice > framework draft, we will replace the term VTN with NRP > > > > 2. To avoid any possible feeling of “marketing”, we will remove the > term “VPN+” and use only “enhanced VPN” within the document. > > > > During the meeting there was some suggestion that the term “enhanced VPN” > should also be replaced, but we think this would be a mistake: > > > > 1. When we talk about existing VPN services as described in many > IETF documents, we don’t use terms like “traditional VPN” or anything > like that. A VPN service as described in those existing documents is just a > connectivity service. It is true that many vendors sell, and many operators > deploy, VPN services with additional QoS / SLA commitments. This document > does not try to imply that those services didn’t previously exist – just > that they have not previously been described in the IETF. We suggest that > “enhanced VPN” is a good way to describe this type of service that is > more than has previously been described in the IETF. > > > > 2. There was some concern about “What would we call a future > further enhancement of the VPN service if we have already used the name ‘enhanced > VPN’?” We think that any future additional parameterization of the VPN > service would still fit within the description and categorization of “enhanced > VPN” as described in this document. > > > > 3. When we refer to the solution technologies for realizing VPN > services, we may talk about “BGP/MPLS VPN” or similar. But in this case, > we are not focusing on the solution technology – yes, there is an > architecture for delivering the solution, but just like network slicing, > the detailed solution is out of scope for the framework and left to > multiple other I-Ds. Therefore the term “enhanced VPN” should not be > taken as describing the solution/protocol technology. > > > > 4. An idea was proposed in the meeting to use the name “NRP-based > VPN”. We don’t think this is the right term because it exposes a > realization mechanism and seems to force a solution. What we need in this > document is a term to describe this type of service. > > > > Thus we suggest that the term enhanced VPN, which has been used all the > way through the development of this document, should be retained as no > better term has been suggested. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Jie (on behalf of the coauthors) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
- [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN draft Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] Ongoing update of the enhanced VPN dra… Gyan Mishra