Thanks Pablo for your comments. In line [Uma]: On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:20 AM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) < pcama...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Uma et al, > > > > Thank you for all the work on this document. > > > > As described in the abstract this document defines two things: > > In section 2 you describe a framework to map slices in mobile systems to > slices in the transport network; while in section 3 you describe how a new > transport network underlay routing mechanism, Preferred Path Routing, can > be used in combination with this framework. > Right. But it also lays out other TE mechanisms (SR, RSVP-TE) which are already being used in the networks and how that is applicable to the framework described. > > > PPR (draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing and > draft-chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing) was last presented in LSR > WG at IETF102 if I recall correctly. > > The WG highlighted issues with regards to the scalability of the proposal. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-102-lsr/ > > Further discussion took place at the LSR mailer and those scalability > concerns on PPR remain unaddressed. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/6TzBBkmq4hQkiqyBeuN7MMOtMs0/ > We did give further updates and answers in IETF 103 and further published new work (ppr graphs work, the above links points to). And a hackathon related to this in IETF105. But I admit, I have not been active further in the LSR group. Shall follow through this further. But the larger point was it just merely shows various segments of Xhaul (with L1/L2 and L3 transport) how different underlying technologies can address the framework described here. > > In my opinion it would be good to either address the LSR scalability > concerns on PPR, or perhaps move all PPR content (Section 3 and related > appendix) into a separate document. > > Given that PPR is unneeded to define the framework -core of the ID-; and > both sections seem orthogonal, I believe splitting the document would be > appropriate. > Noted your preference Pablo, but as I said this was there merely to attest what's been laid out and how new mobility scenarios with transport awareness work in general. I can make it concise just to respect the earlier agreements with feedback received (regarding example etc.). Many thx, -- Uma C. > > >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
