Hi WG, I reviewed the draft, and support the adoption. The proposal may be a useful improvement of SR architecture, and it will be valuable to consider it.
The follows are my comments: - Regarding scalability, it will depend on how to design configurations, and I think that there is little difference between existing technologies and the proposal. The number of virtual networks which can be built will strongly depend on the spec/ability of the underlay network. For example, the number of available QoS classes is limited by the number of queues which routers have. Or the size of a forwarding table depends on performance of TCAM. I think a critical point on scalability is underlay network spec/ability rather than the nature of techniques/protocols. - Simplifying data plane structure and its management by unifying several forwarding mechanisms to SID may be one of advantages of the proposal. - This extension may be a fundamental improvement, and it may not be necessary to be tied to usage for enhanced VPN solution. Regards, Shunsuke On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:48 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Authors, > thank you for that well-written document. It was a pleasure to read. I > have a number of questions and much appreciate it if you can clarify them > for me: > > - how you envision mapping resources to a topological SID, e.g. > adj-SID? Would it be 1:1, i..e., a new SID for each resource that > characterizes a link in a virtual network? > - how granular association of a resource with a SID could practically > be? For example, BW may be de-composed into, per. RFC 6003, CIR, CBS, EIR, > and EBS. Do you expect a transient SR node to do policing and/or shaping > according to such resource information? > - I agree, that FlexE is one of Layer 2 technologies to provide > predictable, in regard to performance, transport. What benefits of using > resource information you see for FlexE? Would an intermediate node manage > the FlexE calendar? > > Regards, > Greg > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:17 AM James Guichard < > james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > >> Dear WG: >> >> >> >> This email begins a 2 week WG adoption call for >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn/ >> ending Wednesday 29th July 2020. >> >> >> >> Please speak up if you support or oppose adopting this document into the >> WG. Please also provide comments/reasons for that support (or lack >> thereof). Silence will not be considered consent. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Jim, Joel & Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
