Re: [Teas] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)

Aijun Wang <> Thu, 21 January 2021 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7E23A1858; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:20:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 8sVuwtJixhr4; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0D7A3A1855; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id C9E4C1C0200; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:20:51 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?'=C3=89ric_Vyncke'?= <>, "'The IESG'" <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:20:51 +0800
Message-ID: <003201d6efd6$b68d4640$23a7d2c0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQEIGZLmCFpLblV/L4tRXAaIqJUtSKvPS16g
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a77243f1d9bd993kuwsc9e4c1c0200
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-teas-pce-native-ip-15=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:20:58 -0000

Hi, Eric:

Thanks for your review and comments.
Would you like to provide some suggestions for the abstract in a more assertive way?
Other response are inline below.[WAJ]

Thanks for your efforts.

Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: <> On Behalf Of éric Vyncke via Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 6:57 PM
To: The IESG <>
Subject: [Teas] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for the work put into this document. I love the oxymoron approach with "The solution combines the use of distributed routing protocols and a centralized controller" ;-)

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,




Am I right when inferring that for each TE path there is a need to add one loopback interface/address on every edge router + 1 BGP session ? How will it scale ? Should there be a mention somewhere of this limitation (if confirmed) ?
I saw nothing in section 7.1 (scalability).
[WAJ] The TE number of path is proportional to the service types between one BGP pairs, not proportional to the prefixes/address pairs. Section 5 gives some clues for such considerations. 
Actually, in operator's network, we think there is not many different disjoint paths to be selected. Do you think so? 

-- Abstract --
"it ... identifies needed extensions for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", at first sight, it seems that it is an incomplete document or a problem statement until reading the last sentence of the introduction. May I suggest to change the sentence in the abstract in a more assertive way ?
[WAJ] OK. Would you like to provide the suggestions to let the reader to get the key points of this draft more quickly? 

-- Section 3 --
Suggest to define the lo11 & others as the loopback interfaces in the first bullet in the list.
[WAJ] OK, Done. Will update the first bullet as " Build two BGP sessions between R1 and R2, via the different loopback addresses on these routers (lo11 and lo12 are the loopback address of R1, lo21 and lo22 are the loopback address of R2). "  is this acceptable?

I am far from being an expert in BGP and routing but isn't the link selection still done *only* on the destination prefix ? I fail to see how the source prefix is used in the forwarding decision (except for the return traffic).
I.e., there is no traffic isolation as PF11 can sent traffic to PF22 using the link 'reserved' for PF12 to PF22.
[WAJ] Yes. For such isolation and traffic diverse, we should consider other mechanisms.  

-- Section 4 --
Suggest to add 'RR' in the R3 box.
[WAJ] Done.

== NITS ==

several s/large scale/large-scale/ ?
[WAJ] Done

The usual way for acronyms is "Path Computation Client (PCC)" rather than "PCC (Path Computation Client)"
[WAJ] Has fixed.

Teas mailing list