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
