Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

John,

Does RFC 3209 have any guidance on how many RSVP-TE sessions you can run
simultaneously in a network, or a node? It's obviously both implementation
and deployment dependent. Why is this draft any different?

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 7:49 AM John E Drake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Comments inline
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 24, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Drake [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2018 9:15 PM
> *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Igor Bryskin <
> [e-mail]>; Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Comment inline
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:47 PM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>; Igor Bryskin <
> [e-mail]>; Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> This draft does not suggest to allocate network resources to each
> individual VPN, only the VPNs which require particular level of SLA need to
> be integrated with underlay network resources, thus the number of enhanced
> VPN would be much less than the number of traditional overlay VPNs. Also it
> is possible that several VPNs with similar characteristics could be
> assigned with a set of aggregated resources,  and would share the same
> logical network.
>
>
>
> *[JD]  I don’t recall any such discussion in the draft.  Further, what is
> the maximum # of VPN+ instances supported in a given network such that that
> network does not implode?*
>
>
>
> [Jie] Such discussion happened during the presentation on previous IETF
> meetings, the current draft doesn't mandate the mapping of each individual
> VPN to dedicated logical network with resources allocated.
>
>
> JD. I am going to compile a list of statements
> that the draft makes that would lead one to a
> different conclusion
>
> That said, we could add some clarification in future version. The number
> of enhanced VPNs would depend on the number of services and customers which
> have such level of SLA requirement.
>
>
>
>
> JD  So, you have no guidance to offer?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* Teas [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *John E Drake
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:14 PM
> *To:* Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>; Andrew G. Malis <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
>
>
>
> Igor,
>
>
>
> I am not convinced that network slicing is a good idea because it assumes
> that logical networks w/ vastly different characteristics can be built out
> of a set of common network resources.  I am convinced that allocating
> network resources on a per-VPN basis is a bad idea because of the scaling
> issues.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:55 AM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>; Andrew G. Malis <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Do you see any differences between a logical network and a network
> topology? Specifically, would you define network slices as produced by the
> same physical network sufficiently separated network topologies, each of
> which designed for specific class(es) of clients/overlays, with network
> resources available for the overlays limited by the resource pools
> allocated to the corresponding topologies? Another question: could network
> slices in your opinion be built hierarchically, i.e. higher level slices
> comprised of lower level ones?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Igor
>
>
>
> *From:* Teas [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *John E Drake
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:46 AM
> *To:* Andrew G. Malis; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* TEAS WG Chairs; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
>
>
>
> Andy,
>
>
>
> Network slicing is very different from what is described in this draft.
> Network slicing envisions a small number of logical networks built using
> the same physical network, each of which is designed for a specific type of
> overlay network and a given VPN, depending upon its requirements, would be
> assigned to one or more of these network slices.  This draft, in contrast,
> is describing assignment of resources from the physical network to
> individual VPNs.
>
>
>
> This is clearly absurd, and its characterization as a ‘scalable approach’
> seems ill-considered.
>
>
>
> This draft is also not a framework draft in any of the normally used
> definitions of that word (
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/framework
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.merriam-2Dwebster.com_dictionary_framework&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=n9sCWh1x8RH083BAlFMqUZfK0blyu7AEqTYj5kopZ1I&s=o2aQfkCcHYaq6v8_OptqlhDqzYAgs1OiHS3JnOcuXtY&e=>).
> Rather, I would characterize it as a set of semi-random musings.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Teas <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2018 9:38 AM
> *To:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-03
>
>
>
> Yes/support. This is a scalable approach for network slicing and enhanced
> VPNs that builds on a body of existing work.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:27 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This is start of a *three* week poll on making
> draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn a TEAS working group document.
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
> document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd
> like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
>
> The poll ends Jan 7th 2019 (extra week to account for the holidays).
>
> Thanks,
> Pavan and Lou
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=jfPzAk6KYMTzEcjux7ADyZR5qPrxoPYBDdzWSlkedyw&s=uXdPvThk8MvzKASbv-H0_ekBtni_GK-xqPKnIbJ6ek4&e=>
>
>