I'm fine with the replies. Thanks! Daniele
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 8:12 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
