Hi Richard, I understand that these days you say "5G" and you are done for any use case. :)
So I read this paper: https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_wp28_mec_in_5G_FINAL..pdf There is nothing there which would indicate a need for zone or even area separation to effectively deploy MEC. To me MEC data path can be constructed with a form of encapsulation in an arbitrary fashion. In fact I could say the more underlay walls you implement the harder it becomes to construct arbitrary MEC mesh. At least for LSR WG if I were to justify any work here like TTZ I would explain why Multi access edge computing requires IGP/underlay type of separation and moreover why such separation can not be constructed with areas or levels. Thx, R. On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 5:18 AM Richard Li <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a use case: > > > > The user plane of 5G is distributed, and MEC is deployed as part of the > user plane to provide some functions at Access Aggregation Ring or Regional > Aggregation Ring or at the border between Regional Aggregation Ring and the > National Core. Using TTZ, MEC or part of it can be virtualized and > topologically simplified. Note that the outside really doesn’t care about > the internals of MEC. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > *From:* Lsr <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Robert Raszuk > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:25 PM > *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent > Zone" - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt > > > > Dear WG, > > > > The draft in question does not describe even a single practical use case. > > > > While it describes the mechanics on how to construct the new model of the > abstraction it fails to prove we need it. > > > > Not everything which can be invented should be standardized or implemented > therefore until the document extensively describes the real use cases with > justification why use of areas may not be sufficient for such use cases I > don't think LSR WG should adopt it. > > > > Regards, > Robert. > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:17 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee= > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Based on the discussions in the last meeting and on the mailing list > regarding draft-chen-isis-ttz-11, the chairs feel that there are enough > differences with draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03 and in the community to > consider advancing it independently on the experimental track. > > > > These differences include abstraction at arbitrary boundaries and IS-IS > extensions for smooth transition to/from zone abstraction. > > > > We are now starting an LSR WG adoption call for > draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt. Please indicate your support or objection to > adoption prior to Tuesday, September 2nd, 2020. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee and Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7Crichard.li%40futurewei..com%7Ccfd66b6c7fc54591ec0408d843bd4046%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637333827425070909&sdata=UgI0%2Bd6TyQtenEEoyU97R2qQJBlzRYuqS4XxhFjjcYA%3D&reserved=0> > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
