Re: [Teas] Review of draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls

[Krzysztof Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bo Wu,

Please see inline.

Thanks,
Krzysztof


On 2023 -Dec-03, at 04:39, Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo=[e-mail]<mailto:lana.wubo=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Authors, WG,

I have read draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls and have several general comments:

1. On the mapping between IETF Network Slice Service SDP and 5G CE, this document and draft-5g-network-slice-application (5g-application) both provide some content. I think it would be more clear to list all 5G CE options in one document and avoid the inconsistency between the two documents. For example, Section 4 Overview of the Realization Model describes three options: VLAN, IP, and MPLS. However draft-5g-application has more options than these. This document says that 5G CEs have BGP protocol mapping, while Section 5.3 of draft-5g-application does not .

[Krzysztof] As per agreement between 5G application and 5G realization draft, the hand-off options between different domains is part of realization. So, are you suggesting that hand-off options should be moved from 5G-application to 5G-realization draft, and the text combined in the 5G-realization draft? Regarding “This document says that 5G CEs have BGP protocol mapping, ..” could you refer to specific section?


2. Section 6 Transport Planes Mapping Models introduces "tunnel group" or "transport planes'. Can you clarify how to manage the tunnel groups?
Does tunnel group management also requires topology and resource allocation management? As I am wondering the difference between tunnel group management and NRP management. Per Section 4.2. Control Plane Network Resource Partition Mode of draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls, NRP has a mode of control plane without data plane encapsulation mechanism.


[Krzysztof] “Tunnel groups” or “transport planes” is the concept deployed in production networks by many operators since years, where multiple TE tunnels are created between PEs, using different path optimization method. For example, some tunnels are optimization for latency, some other tunnels are just following default IGP path, etc. The way how these tunnels are managed is out-of-scope for this document, but we provide some examples, like Flex-Algo or RSVP/SR traffic engineering tunnels with or without PCE, and with or without bandwidth reservations. Further, Section 7, especially section 7.2, discusses different capacity planning and bandwidth models for these tunnels.

3. Section 3 5G Network Slicing Integration in Transport Networks defines various distributed CE-PE models which are not used in subsequent sections.

[Krzysztof] Section 3.3.1 has following text at the end: “In subsequent sections of this document, the terms CE and PE are used for both single and distributed devices."

Are these different models related to the implementation of QoS mapping, connectivity, or capacity planning? Could you add some text to reflect that?

[Krzysztof] Not sure, if I follow exactly what is the request here. QoS mapping, transport plane mapping, or capacity planning is orthogonal to the fact, if the PE is distributed or not.


Thanks,
Bo Wu
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas