Hi Daniele, It seems that your comments have either been addressed or at least responded. Please reply if you wish further discussion.
Thanks, Acee > On Dec 1, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Chongfeng, > > Thanks for addressing my comments. > I would just suggest to add some text to the draft to explain the comment > below > > > [Chongfeng] This is discussed in the scalability considerations section of > this draft. This mechanism is useful for network scenarios in which the > required number of VTN/NRP is small, the advantage is no protocol extension > is required (as reflected by the document type). For network scenarios where > the number of required VTN/NRP is large, more scalable solution would be > needed, which may result in further protocol extensions and enhancements. > > > BR > Daniele > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:00 AM Chongfeng Xie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Daniele, > > Thanks a lot for your careful review and comments. Please see my replies > inline [Chongfeng]: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniele Ceccarelli via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2023 10:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > > Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli > Review result: Has Issues > > - General: The term and concept of Enhanced VPN is being discussed in TEAS as > part of the WG last call. I suggest to follow that thread and align the draft > with whatever output will be agreed. > > [Chongfeng] Yes the terminology in this draft will align with the decision on > terminology in in TEAS > - General: i would suggest to change the title into "Applicability" rather > than using. Per my understanding this document describes how to use existing > mechanisms to achieve something new (the status is correctly informational) > > [Chongfeng] Agree, we can make this change in next revision. > - Abstract: "enhanced isolation". i checked if it was defined in the > framework for Enhanced VPNs in TEAS, but i couldn't find a definition there > nor in this draft. What does it mean? > > [Chongfeng] We will align this description with the enhanced VPN framework > draft. > > - VTN: is this a new term to identify a set of existing items? E.g. an ACTN > VN, NRP, a set of RSVP-TE tunnel, a topology built with flex algo...are they > cases of VTN or the VTN is a different thing? > > [Chongfeng] According to the recent discussion in TEAS, it is agreed to > replace the term VTN with NRP. > > - Intro: s/than that can be provided/than the ones that can be provided > > [Chongfeng] OK. > > - "Another possible approach is to create a set of point-to-point paths, each > with a set of network resources reserved along the path, such paths are > called Virtual Transport Path (VTP)". In what is this different from an ACTN > VN member? See RFC 8453. > > [Chongfeng] VN member as defined in RFC 8453 refers to "edge-to-edge link" > exposed in the management plane, which is formed as end-to-end tunnels in the > underlying networks. The term VTP refers to point-to-point underlay paths > with network resource reserved along the path. So VTPs can be considered as > one specific type of underlay tunnel with resource reservation. As we will > replace VTN with NRP, we will consider whether the term VTP is still needed > or not. > > - Introduction: "In some network scenarios, the required number of VTNs could > be small, and it is assumed that each VTN is associated with an independent > topology and has a set of dedicated or shared network resources. This > document describes a simplified mechanism to build SR based VTNs in those > scenarios." I don't understand, is there the need for a specific mechanisms > (different from existing ones) only for particular cases in which the number > of VTNs is small (smaller than other scenarios)? > > [Chongfeng] This is discussed in the scalability considerations section of > this draft. This mechanism is useful for network scenarios in which the > required number of VTN/NRP is small, the advantage is no protocol extension > is required (as reflected by the document type). For network scenarios where > the number of required VTN/NRP is large, more scalable solution would be > needed, which may result in further protocol extensions and enhancements. > > Section 3.1 "The usage of other TE attributes in topology-specific TLVs is > for further study." The draft is pretty simple and small, can't the usage of > other TE attributes be described here as well? > > [Chongfeng] Yes the encoding of TE attributes in topology-specific TLVs is > simple, while a more important thing is to find valid use case for them. The > current VTN/NRP use case only makes use of the bandwidth attribute, other TE > attributes are not in the scope. Thus this statement is considered OK for > this document. > > Best regards > Chongfeng > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
