Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sat, 15 January 2022 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99313A1153 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:04:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rQFzBXdvb1cd for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43DBE3A1151 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id g5so16109768plo.12 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:04:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/jl5ncBnaEyY7QM+RLvPCo05wXp9X+ci96xbPGM4IOM=; b=R4XawG8tQfVMLDi8KbQb51TDzO6oxQeYU+cMUIFUGvhCEZXOcpJXosMZcEy2Gg7ZDF tiXt5nlxAm1XQAgtfgCB1LqXOzTj+AbC+VuvIwt+MzHQruPBIlnCHUSbkK7LjzH+sARi cv7e8srHIyOw17tNz6OQtrrAy6YrTnj4RT99OkcdBDSnxQ5XE8+4D+BKniVOfBvIjg2I Bikqf4vw2b+kTykyJOsHOTgu59sjX15d0viJXYChQcnc59fxxTimUq8Ebfvj62lwhR4c XBtxxePUzHCvZFT8rFr6HynR++l2+FH5JiNKbENzATN7WI1m57Tk5JQQ1ySHe1RRO+Hi csQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/jl5ncBnaEyY7QM+RLvPCo05wXp9X+ci96xbPGM4IOM=; b=HKYMEDEhO8XVVfkmiNoFy/jHGmVRRBzS5/4OxN7RtL7eu83I/Fulv/MdHMFS5kJSyB xleM6iy7ihPCgZeu3oJdExjc69ey8VHId5UI+5iQPTEPi1euV/m6yKVBMNeKDRW2De3m ykM3VZPOce6rjrD6Zyx0r1+Ruo+ccqrlNmSavb5xsnaJQCi54UyD30a9OPgG13nJEUF5 rHJotbhiGMNMyAMzBv9C6+u5vYYLfp7Fpofy6I5lasfyFfLyAPgzR4fteGn5WaFlQunn L5gZ/SCPk1q3B5pciJPXrUeLaArbE+sG+7yVOJYw7hKhOVDj97h5o0S+V/IHHPVtTibl 4VeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oFm3KRZjoI/2j0zbN8YQJ2sCDc1t5cCZUonOzPMDmZA5MXrnf 3w6VtiE36SouCevD8wis1plJj+WwteXlnMOA9dA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxCnEJI2xgUTS/1DwDeQT5sqK3/r6YMJMQyY0W6QXlCg4w8UNHmfNoFBNfDtnSa8xDWdec5aZHs5euvaEjLVj8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4ac6:: with SMTP id mh6mr26525268pjb.47.1642277048402; Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:04:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <57454ea9d22240cbad4dd7c29b75f89a@huawei.com> <04c001d808a1$d5b22b50$811681f0$@olddog.co.uk> <b53138302d4a4045a33ebff2360b341f@huawei.com> <2004075666.607918.1642149263418@mail.yahoo.com> <AM8PR07MB829500AFC4EAC646B45A1391F0549@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <062401d80967$bd0766d0$37163470$@olddog.co.uk> <CAFS+G6RvMYfbamQd5RU0hPzwakF+LOZHy0nvMMVircfGUJMjUQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFS+G6RvMYfbamQd5RU0hPzwakF+LOZHy0nvMMVircfGUJMjUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2022 15:03:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2TBgN9WynOVgD-HifzP34Es_5qVxrrvGA6UfA6iQSZiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aihua Guo <aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, adrian@olddog.co.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017c82305d5a46c36"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/iShRC1ULHv4XR8dhCwis7CnI3dY>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2022 20:04:15 -0000

I support WG Adoption.

I did have some questions and thankfully Aihua has answered mine as well.

Regards

Gyan

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 5:20 PM Aihua Guo <aihuaguo.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Adrian, Daniele and Igor,
>
> IMHO an OTN slice, like an IETF network slice, is used to represent an
> intent from a (internal or external) customer's view. This intent includes
> a combination of resource requirements which can be expressed by
> connectivities or topologies, along with the common and OTN
> technology-specific SLOs. Customers usually do not care how an OTN slice is
> realized at the control plane and/or data plane, and VPN is one of the
> possible realizations.
>
> To summarize, an L1VPN with QoS parameters can be considered as a possible
> realization of an OTN slice.
>
> Also, if I understand it correctly, L1VPN is implemented using the control
> plane per rfc4878 and is not targeted as an NBI model.
>
> Thanks,
> Aihua
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:57 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> I think there is a difference between a L3/L2 VPN and a L1VPN that is to
>> do with the nature of connectivity in the underlying network. A packet VPN
>> is expressed as a set of edge points and the edge connectivity capacities,
>> but not the edge-to-edge capacities. A L1VPN (at least for some L1
>> technologies – but not all?) has to be expressed in terms of edge-to-edge
>> capacities because you cannot do “on-demand” traffic routing within the
>> network – the flow markings are at a macro level.
>>
>>
>>
>> From that perspective, I’d agree that L1VPN is close to L1 slicing. It
>> would be good to hear the authors spell out the differences that they
>> obviously have in mind.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, not only did Daniele ask his question in TEAS, he also go an answer
>> 😊. There are service models in which a network slice may look like a
>> “VPN with QoS” – those are the enhanced VPN cases. But there are also
>> service models where the edge-to-edge flows are spelled out in more detail
>> than in a VPN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
>> *Sent:* 14 January 2022 16:14
>> *To:* Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>; zhangfatai=
>> 40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org; adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org
>> >
>> *Subject:* RE: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on
>> draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
>>
>>
>>
>> Indeed a very good question…which is similar to the more generic question
>> of what is the difference between a LxVPN with QoS (e.g a L3VPN bound to a
>> TE tunnel) and a slice which I tried to ask in TEAS (but that’s a different
>> story).
>>
>> Let’s focus on the difference between L1VPN and OTN slice here.
>>
>>
>>
>> BR
>> Daniele
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Igor Bryskin
>> *Sent:* den 14 januari 2022 09:34
>> *To:* zhangfatai=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org; Fatai Zhang <
>> zhangfatai=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Fatai
>> Zhang' <zhangfatai=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG adoption poll on
>> draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Fatai,
>>
>>
>>
>> I like that you and Adrian like my style, but I did ask questions before
>> the last IETF. The basic one is this:
>>
>> When I explain my wife what IETF network slice is, I say: Remember, we
>> have this thing called IP VPN?  Network slice is roughly IP VPN with QOS
>> parameters.
>>
>>
>>
>> Considering that L1VPN cannot be without QOS, my question to the authors
>> what is the difference between L1VPN and OTN slice?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Igor
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-3b3081161b9d5ba0&q=1&e=df107fd9-1747-4e23-801b-18984b9b6289&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.onelink.me%2F107872968%3Fpid%3DInProduct%26c%3DGlobal_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers%26af_wl%3Dym%26af_sub1%3DInternal%26af_sub2%3DGlobal_YGrowth%26af_sub3%3DEmailSignature>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 2:00 AM, Fatai Zhang
>>
>> <zhangfatai=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*