Re: [Teas] Associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an NRP

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

Just realized that this thread was left hanging..

For all NRP specific protocol extension documents, the request from the
TEAS WG chairs is the the following (nothing more, nothing less):

   - Add a “Scalability Considerations” section.
   - Keep the TEAS WG updated about the progress of the document
   (especially during WG adoption and WGLC)


With regards to draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp for which this thread was
initiated, it is on the agenda in today's WG session. The expectation is
that this would trigger a discussion on the utility of the protocol
extension defined in this draft.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 7:34 PM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Pavan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for starting this thread. It’s a fine thing to talk about.
>
>
>
> I don’t think the TEAS working group would be in a position to stop other
> working groups picking up and working on protocol extensions that they
> think are necessary. But it might be good to have an overview perspective
> of how NRPs might be constructed in different protocol environments so that
> those working groups can go ahead and make the protocol changes with
> confidence.
>
>
>
> It’s probable that TEAS was a bit premature adopting draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls
> while other working groups were holding back waiting for the slicing
> framework to stabilise and be approved for publication. But we don’t need
> to go there. What is important now is to recognise that it is open for
> people to work out how they want to develop solutions to support NRPs. TEAS
> can certainly coordinate that work, but I don’t think it can constrain it
> because slicing is a broad concept and there are plenty of protocols and
> service architectures that can deliver “slices.”
>
>
>
> What do you propose (maybe you could put your hat back on?) as a way that
> we could act to coordinate this work?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Teas <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> *Sent:* 28 September 2023 14:11
> *To:* TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [Teas] Associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an NRP
>
>
>
> There are a couple of control-plane protocol extension documents that have
> been proposed outside TEAS WG for associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an
> NRP.
>
>    - draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp proposes extensions to BGP for
>    associating an SR policy with an NRP
>    - draft-dong-pce-pcep-nrp proposes extensions to PCEP for associating
>    a TE LSP with an NRP
>
> The motivation behind this association is to ensure that the TE paths are
> computed, placed and maintained within the topology associated with the
> specified NRP (discussed briefly in draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls).
>
>
>
> We have had some discussion/debate in the past in TEAS on whether or not
> there should be any NRP specific control-plane protocol extensions defined
> at all. Most of that debate has been focused around extensions to
> link-state protocols. AFAIR, we (in TEAS) haven't discussed the specific
> type of protocol extension discussed in the aforementioned drafts.
>
>
>
> I'm starting this thread to get some feedback from the WG on this specific
> type of protocol extension.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> - Pavan (as a WG contributor)
>