Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks

Huzhibo <> Mon, 02 August 2021 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8293A1AD9; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 05:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h_iVuqOM3ST0; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 05:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0846E3A1AD8; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 05:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GdcRM6CXnz6FFrW; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 20:15:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 14:16:06 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 20:16:04 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 20:16:04 +0800
From: Huzhibo <>
To: "" <>, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Re:[Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks
Thread-Index: AdeHe6JjiZpTuN7ZShGi+jdd9/G4Iv//hx4A//9OetA=
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 12:16:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks
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: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 12:16:15 -0000

Hi PSF, 

The discussion Jie referred to was the about the terminology alignment between VTN, Slice Aggregate, etc. in several active network slice related drafts. With the "merging" of draft-peng-teas-network-slicing into draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet, it is not clear whether the term "AII" has been totally replaced by "Slice Aggregate", or you still plan to work on it separately?

After the discussion among the authors of several drafts, the agreement is to find a common new term for network slice realization, so that those drafts could refer to that new term. This is also what we suggested to the authors of draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks for better terminology alignment.

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 5:39 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <>
Subject: Re:[Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks

Hi Dongjie,

Seeing that you openly mention VTN-ID, I have to remind you again that the VTN-ID is just the A-I-I of draft-peng-teas-network-slicing which analyzes the necessity of introducing slice identifier into underlay network. I believe you never thought about dealing with the overlap of VTN-ID and A-I-I, so how can you ask other drafts to do so?  
Again, you may say that the A-I-I related scheme described by draft-peng-teas-network-slicing has scalability problems ... ... so that VTN-ID is not A-I-I... ... 


抄送人:TEAS WG;
日 期 :2021年08月02日 17:07
主 题 :[Teas] Some comments on draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks
Teas mailing list

Hi authors,
Thanks for the presentation in the TEAS session in last week. Here are some comments on this draft:
1.      As discussed on the TEAS meeting, the terminologies in several drafts related to network slicing realization will be aligned, thus it is suggested the terminology in this document also aligns with the "new term"  to be proposed.
2.      As this document lists the SR technologies which can be used for network slice realization in SR networks, the suggestion is it should also describe and reference draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments and  draft-ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn which specifies the extensions to SR segments and the mechanisms to provide SR based VTNs.
3.      Section 8 of this document describes the "stateless network slice ID" concept and the mechanisms with different data planes. The general mechanism of introducing dedicated VTN identifier in data packet for per-VTN  packet processing was described in draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability, thus there is some overlap in this part which needs to be solved in future versions.
Best regards,