Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

[Gyan Mishra]

Hi Acee

As an operator, I  support adoption of the draft and would like to provide
answers to your questions.

I would like to start by stating that as this is an informational document,
 as nothing new is proposed other then the recommendation to use MT for VTN
provisioning as a component of the 5G network slicing solutions, the
benefit is that this concept can be used immediately as other NS features
are still being developed.

The solution for network slicing resource isolation is multi faceted
involves Enhanced VPN+ provisioning, resource SIDs for provisioning
underlay resources, SR-TE Per VPN or flow path steering to meet NS SLO
requirements, as well as a method to isolate IGP resources for a VTN.

MT is a component of the entire NS solution so there is really nothing to
market as it’s not the only component used to provision the VTN.

As their is a need for providing a viable means of provisioning IGP
underlay resources VTN network slice and the ability to provide forwarding
plane isolation via topological RIB without consuming tremendous control
plane resources per instance as with MI.

This draft does fill the gap of a means of forwarding plane isolation on
shared infrastructure even though it does have scalability considerations.

As other ideas of IGP forwarding plane isolation come about we are open to
other solutions as well.

As their are scalability concerns in section 5 that should be expanded,
when MT should be used to support VTN and when should not. Agreed.

I would deploy in a limited fashion taking into account the scalability
concerns.

Enhanced VPN  VPN+ scalability issue are described in detail in this draft
below.  Lots of variables related to how many slices based on services
which will eventually scale up but I think MT may suffice well in the
beginning stages.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability-01


There are many drafts and solutions in the works across many different WGs
that are working on development of solution as to how network slicing and
SLO can be realized  by operators for 5G services.

Of these drafts below there are a number of Enhanced VPN Framework VPN+
 related drafts that are critical to the provisioning of various components
of network slicing.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-07

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability/

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drake-bess-enhanced-vpn-06

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-02

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 2:21 PM Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> Speaking as WG chair:
>
>
>
> There has been considerable support for this document. However, there has
> also been objections to the document. The objections are either that there
> is nothing to standardize given that all pieces exist and that the MT isn’t
> a viable option for VTNs since it isn’t scalable.
>
>
>
> Since most of the draft’s support is from “friends and family”, I’d like
> to know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want to market
> it as a VTN solution? Those of you who operate networks, would you actually
> consider deploying it?
>
>
>
> In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where
> using MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr  on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)"
> 
>
>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 6:28 PM
> *To: *"lsr@ietf.org" 
> *Subject: *[Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT)
> for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” -
> draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
>
>
>
> This information draft describes how MT could be used for VTN
> segmentation. The authors have asked for WG adoption.
>
>
>
> This begins a three week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS
> Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” -
> draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03. I’m giving it three weeks due to the IETF
> next week. Please register your support or objection on this list prior to
> the end of the adoption poll on 3/24/2020.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
-- 



*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *



*M 301 502-1347*
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

[Chongfeng Xie]

Hi, Acee,

Thanks for your understanding about the deployment considerations and the value 
of reusing existing technologies when possible.

We have submitted the draft as draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-00 with only the 
change in the title and date.  And we will expand section 5 and add references 
to relevant TEAS documents in next revision.

Chongfeng 

 
发件人： Acee Lindem (acee)
发送时间： 2021-03-26 23:30
收件人： Dongjie (Jimmy); Chongfeng Xie; Acee Lindem (acee); lsr@ietf.org
主题： Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment 
Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
Hi Jie, Chongfeng,
 
I’ve read draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn and I agree that the combination of MT 
and SR could be used to meet a given SLO. Given that I work with products and 
customers, I also know there can be a significant time lag for qualification 
and deployment of a software version. In lieu of resource-aware segments, you 
could even use an existing technology like VLANs with appropriate QoS 
guarantees. Hence, I can see the value of using existing technologies. Please 
go ahead and republish draft-xie-lsr-sr-vtn-mt as 
draft-ietf-lsr-sr-vtn-mt-00.txt. 
 
Section 5 can be expanded in subsequent revisions with appropriate references 
to TEAS documents. 
 
Thanks,
Acee
 
 
 
From: Lsr  on behalf of Jie Dong 
Date: Friday, March 26, 2021 at 10:39 AM
To: Chongfeng Xie , "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
, "lsr@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 
Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
 
Hi Acee, 
 
I agree with what Chongfeng said about VTN. It refers to a virtual underlay 
network with specific topology and resource attributes, and the topology of 
VTNs can be specified using multi-topology. It is important to understand the 
difference between a VTN and a logical network topology. 
 
As for the deployment choice and scalability, 
draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability gives some detailed analysis. In 
summary, it says in different network scenarios and phases, the required number 
of VTNs could be different, thus several options may be provided to meet 
different requirements, with different cost and time to market.
 
Best regards,
Jie
 
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chongfeng Xie
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 2:14 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 
Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
 
Hi，Acee，
 
Regarding to the issues put forward in your mail, I'd like to provide some 
comments as below,
 
Q1：I’d like to know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want 
to market it as a VTN solution? 
 
[CF]：VTN is defined in draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn, and also used in other 
documents. It is a technical term to refer to virtual underlay networks with 
specific topology and resource attributes. This document provides an MT based 
mechanism to build VTNs. If for marketing, perhaps it would be better called 
"network slicing":-)
 
Q2：Those of you who operate networks, would you actually consider deploying it? 
 
[CF]：As an operator we will consider the scenarios and the requirements to pick 
the most suitable solution, IMO this is a good candidate for scenarios where 
the required number of VTN is not very large, and as it requires no new 
encodings, it could be ready for shipment soon. we plans to use this approach 
in some of our network deployment.
 
Q3：In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where 
using MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t.
 
[CF]：OK. The current section 5 already has some text to cover this, and it can 
be expanded further to clarify. 
 
Best regards
Chongfeng
 
 
发件人： Acee Lindem \(acee\)
发送时间： 2021-03-26 02:20
收件人： lsr@ietf.org
主题： Re: [Lsr]WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment 
Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
Speaking as WG chair:
 
There has been considerable support for this document. However, there has also 
been objections to the document. The objections are either that there is 
nothing to standardize given that all pieces exist and that the MT isn’t a 
viable option for VTNs since it isn’t scalable.
 
Since most of the draft’s support is from “friends and family”, I’d like to 
know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want to market it as 
a VTN solution? Those of you who operate networks, would you actually consider 
deploying it? 
 
In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where using 
MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t. 
 
Thanks,
Acee
 
 
From: Lsr  on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" 

Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 6:28 PM
To: "lsr@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-00.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.

Title   : Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing 
based Virtual Transport Network
Authors : Chongfeng Xie
  Chenhao Ma
  Jie Dong
  Zhenbin Li
Filename: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-00.txt
Pages   : 8
Date: 2021-03-26

Abstract:
   Enhanced VPN (VPN+) aims to provide enhanced VPN service to support
   some application's needs of enhanced isolation and stringent
   performance requirements.  VPN+ requires integration between the
   overlay VPN and the underlay network.  A Virtual Transport Network
   (VTN) is a virtual underlay network which consists of a subset of the
   network topology and network resources allocated from the physical
   network.  A VTN could be used as the underlay for one or a group of
   VPN+ services.

   In some network scenarios, each VTN can be associated with a unique
   logicial network topology.  This document describes a mechanism to
   build the SR based VTNs using IS-IS Multi-Topology together with
   other well-defined IS-IS extensions.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-00


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Jie, Chongfeng,

I’ve read draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn and I agree that the combination of MT 
and SR could be used to meet a given SLO. Given that I work with products and 
customers, I also know there can be a significant time lag for qualification 
and deployment of a software version. In lieu of resource-aware segments, you 
could even use an existing technology like VLANs with appropriate QoS 
guarantees. Hence, I can see the value of using existing technologies. Please 
go ahead and republish draft-xie-lsr-sr-vtn-mt as 
draft-ietf-lsr-sr-vtn-mt-00.txt.

Section 5 can be expanded in subsequent revisions with appropriate references 
to TEAS documents.

Thanks,
Acee



From: Lsr  on behalf of Jie Dong 
Date: Friday, March 26, 2021 at 10:39 AM
To: Chongfeng Xie , "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
, "lsr@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 
Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

Hi Acee,

I agree with what Chongfeng said about VTN. It refers to a virtual underlay 
network with specific topology and resource attributes, and the topology of 
VTNs can be specified using multi-topology. It is important to understand the 
difference between a VTN and a logical network topology.

As for the deployment choice and scalability, 
draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability gives some detailed analysis. In 
summary, it says in different network scenarios and phases, the required number 
of VTNs could be different, thus several options may be provided to meet 
different requirements, with different cost and time to market.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chongfeng Xie
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 2:14 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 
Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

Hi，Acee，

Regarding to the issues put forward in your mail, I'd like to provide some 
comments as below,

Q1：I’d like to know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want 
to market it as a VTN solution?

[CF]：VTN is defined in draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn, and also used in other 
documents. It is a technical term to refer to virtual underlay networks with 
specific topology and resource attributes. This document provides an MT based 
mechanism to build VTNs. If for marketing, perhaps it would be better called 
"network slicing":-)

Q2：Those of you who operate networks, would you actually consider deploying it?

[CF]：As an operator we will consider the scenarios and the requirements to pick 
the most suitable solution, IMO this is a good candidate for scenarios where 
the required number of VTN is not very large, and as it requires no new 
encodings, it could be ready for shipment soon. we plans to use this approach 
in some of our network deployment.

Q3：In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where 
using MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t.

[CF]：OK. The current section 5 already has some text to cover this, and it can 
be expanded further to clarify.

Best regards
Chongfeng


发件人： Acee Lindem \(acee\)
发送时间： 2021-03-26 02:20
收件人： lsr@ietf.org
主题： Re: [Lsr]WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment 
Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
Speaking as WG chair:

There has been considerable support for this document. However, there has also 
been objections to the document. The objections are either that there is 
nothing to standardize given that all pieces exist and that the MT isn’t a 
viable option for VTNs since it isn’t scalable.

Since most of the draft’s support is from “friends and family”, I’d like to 
know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want to market it as 
a VTN solution? Those of you who operate networks, would you actually consider 
deploying it?

In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where using 
MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t.

Thanks,
Acee


From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Acee Lindem (acee)" 
mailto:acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 6:28 PM
To: "lsr@ietf.org" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 
Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

This information draft describes how MT could be used for VTN segmentation. The 
authors have asked for WG adoption.

This begins a three week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS 
Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03. I’m giving it three weeks due to the IETF next 
week. Please register your support or objection on this list 

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Hi Acee,

I agree with what Chongfeng said about VTN. It refers to a virtual underlay 
network with specific topology and resource attributes, and the topology of 
VTNs can be specified using multi-topology. It is important to understand the 
difference between a VTN and a logical network topology.

As for the deployment choice and scalability, 
draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability gives some detailed analysis. In 
summary, it says in different network scenarios and phases, the required number 
of VTNs could be different, thus several options may be provided to meet 
different requirements, with different cost and time to market.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chongfeng Xie
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 2:14 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 
Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

Hi，Acee，

Regarding to the issues put forward in your mail, I'd like to provide some 
comments as below,

Q1：I’d like to know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want 
to market it as a VTN solution?

[CF]：VTN is defined in draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn, and also used in other 
documents. It is a technical term to refer to virtual underlay networks with 
specific topology and resource attributes. This document provides an MT based 
mechanism to build VTNs. If for marketing, perhaps it would be better called 
"network slicing":-)

Q2：Those of you who operate networks, would you actually consider deploying it?

[CF]：As an operator we will consider the scenarios and the requirements to pick 
the most suitable solution, IMO this is a good candidate for scenarios where 
the required number of VTN is not very large, and as it requires no new 
encodings, it could be ready for shipment soon. we plans to use this approach 
in some of our network deployment.

Q3：In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where 
using MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t.

[CF]：OK. The current section 5 already has some text to cover this, and it can 
be expanded further to clarify.

Best regards
Chongfeng


发件人： Acee Lindem \(acee\)
发送时间： 2021-03-26 02:20
收件人： lsr@ietf.org
主题： Re: [Lsr]WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment 
Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
Speaking as WG chair:

There has been considerable support for this document. However, there has also 
been objections to the document. The objections are either that there is 
nothing to standardize given that all pieces exist and that the MT isn’t a 
viable option for VTNs since it isn’t scalable.

Since most of the draft’s support is from “friends and family”, I’d like to 
know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want to market it as 
a VTN solution? Those of you who operate networks, would you actually consider 
deploying it?

In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where using 
MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t.

Thanks,
Acee


From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Acee Lindem (acee)" 
mailto:acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 6:28 PM
To: "lsr@ietf.org" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 
Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

This information draft describes how MT could be used for VTN segmentation. The 
authors have asked for WG adoption.

This begins a three week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS 
Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03. I’m giving it three weeks due to the IETF next 
week. Please register your support or objection on this list prior to the end 
of the adoption poll on 3/24/2020.

Thanks,
Acee


___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

[Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06.txt

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, Acee :

We have uploaded the updated version of the PUA draft( 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement)
 and think it addressed the issues that discussed on the LSR mailing list.
After presenting this idea several times on the IETF meetings, and discussed 
also several rounds on the mailing list, we think it is time to begin the WG 
adoption call on this idea.
Alternate solutions to the scenarios described in this draft are also welcome.

The update for this draft is mainly in section 7 "Deployment Considerations", 
which describes the following information:
1. Which node should be upgraded to support the PUA to accomplish the 
task.(ABRs and related PEs need to support this features.)
2. How to limit the advertisement of unnecessary PUA message?(ABR can configure 
the protected prefixes)
3. How long the PUA message will be advertised?(Last for a configurable period 
to allow the service on the failed prefixes switchover)
4. Will PUA announce for the non-used inactive prefixes within the summary 
range?(No, ABR will only advertise the PUA message when the prefix status is 
changed from active to down) 

Are the above updates addresses your concerns for this draft? 
If so, we would like to ask for the WG adoption call. If not, would you like to 
raise it within the mailing list, and we will try to address them to forward 
this draft.

Thanks in advance.


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org 
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 2:22 PM
> To: Aijun Wang ; Gyan Mishra
> ; Yaqun Xiao ; Zhibo
> Hu 
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Aijun Wang and posted to the IETF
> repository.
> 
> Name: draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement
> Revision: 06
> Title:Prefix Unreachable Announcement
> Document date:2021-03-26
> Group:Individual Submission
> Pages:9
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annouceme
> nt-06.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annouceme
> nt/
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annou
> cement
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucem
> ent-06
> 
> Abstract:
>This document describes a mechanism to solve an existing issue with
>Longest Prefix Match (LPM), that exists where an operator domain is
>divided into multiple areas or levels where summarization is
>utilized.  This draft addresses a fail-over issue related to a multi
>areas or levels domain, where a link or node down event occurs
>resulting in an LPM component prefix being omitted from the FIB
>resulting in black hole sink of routing and connectivity loss.  This
>draft introduces a new control plane convergence signaling mechanism
>using a negative prefix called Prefix Unreachable Announcement (PUA),
>utilized to detect a link or node down event and signal the RIB that
>the event has occurred to force immediate control plane convergence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 


___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

[Chongfeng Xie]

Hi，Acee，

Regarding to the issues put forward in your mail, I'd like to provide some 
comments as below,

Q1：I’d like to know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want 
to market it as a VTN solution? 

[CF]：VTN is defined in draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn, and also used in other 
documents. It is a technical term to refer to virtual underlay networks with 
specific topology and resource attributes. This document provides an MT based 
mechanism to build VTNs. If for marketing, perhaps it would be better called 
"network slicing":-)

Q2：Those of you who operate networks, would you actually consider deploying it? 

[CF]：As an operator we will consider the scenarios and the requirements to pick 
the most suitable solution, IMO this is a good candidate for scenarios where 
the required number of VTN is not very large, and as it requires no new 
encodings, it could be ready for shipment soon. we plans to use this approach 
in some of our network deployment.

Q3：In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where 
using MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t.

[CF]：OK. The current section 5 already has some text to cover this, and it can 
be expanded further to clarify. 

Best regards
Chongfeng

 
发件人： Acee Lindem \(acee\)
发送时间： 2021-03-26 02:20
收件人： lsr@ietf.org
主题： Re: [Lsr]WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment 
Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
Speaking as WG chair:
 
There has been considerable support for this document. However, there has also 
been objections to the document. The objections are either that there is 
nothing to standardize given that all pieces exist and that the MT isn’t a 
viable option for VTNs since it isn’t scalable.
 
Since most of the draft’s support is from “friends and family”, I’d like to 
know of the WG members who supported it, would you really want to market it as 
a VTN solution? Those of you who operate networks, would you actually consider 
deploying it? 
 
In any case, section 5 needs to be expanded on the scalability and where using 
MTs to support VTNs would make sense and where it wouldn’t. 
 
Thanks,
Acee
 
 
From: Lsr  on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" 

Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 6:28 PM
To: "lsr@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for 
Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
 
This information draft describes how MT could be used for VTN segmentation. The 
authors have asked for WG adoption. 
 
This begins a three week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS 
Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - 
draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03. I’m giving it three weeks due to the IETF next 
week. Please register your support or objection on this list prior to the end 
of the adoption poll on 3/24/2020. 
 
Thanks,
Acee
 
 
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr