Re: New Version Notification for draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-07.txt

Thanks Pablo for your comments. In line [Uma]:

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:20 AM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <
[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm