Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface
"qiangli (D)" <qiangli3@huawei.com> Thu, 04 January 2018 09:11 UTC
Return-Path: <qiangli3@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netslices@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netslices@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817F81205F0 for <netslices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 01:11:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vS2jcl-4WD3q for <netslices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 01:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FE52120227 for <NetSlices@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 01:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1C20F93535FD for <NetSlices@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:11:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMI405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.143) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:11:33 +0000
Received: from DGGEMI509-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.152]) by dggemi405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.143]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:11:28 +0800
From: "qiangli (D)" <qiangli3@huawei.com>
To: Lei Wang <leiw0920@outlook.com>, NetSlices <NetSlices@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface
Thread-Index: AQHTeZ9kKiooTEHoikOC9L32YMqm1aNjgpvQ
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:11:29 +0000
Message-ID: <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED2A5E355C@dggemi509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED2A5DEDA1@dggemi509-mbs.china.huawei.com>, <VI1PR07MB084846CB3A16AE9691C1C3E09B0C0@VI1PR07MB0848.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED2A5DFC7D@dggemi509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <DM5PR0501MB3688237A8CB683F3B8E4C09CC01F0@DM5PR0501MB3688.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR0501MB3688237A8CB683F3B8E4C09CC01F0@DM5PR0501MB3688.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.163.138]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED2A5E355Cdggemi509mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netslices/4nUKT2vifmXNvNVdR3VtTsTxGt8>
Subject: Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface
X-BeenThere: netslices@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is intended for discussion and review of network slicing at IETF." <netslices.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netslices>, <mailto:netslices-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netslices/>
List-Post: <mailto:netslices@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netslices-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices>, <mailto:netslices-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:11:39 -0000
Hi Lei Wang, Thank you for your comments. I think an example given by Hannu could be used to explain option 3 “Probably what you want is to have a set of reference or example mappings for few representative technologies? Such as - A slice over the WAN/transport network for a given technology, - A slice over VNF infrastructure (SFCs and nvo3), - A slice that is a concatenation of the two across different domains (this we know is missing).” Best regards, Cristina QIANG From: Netslices [mailto:netslices-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lei Wang Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 3:12 PM To: qiangli (D) <qiangli3@huawei.com>; NetSlices <NetSlices@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface Hi Cristina, I agree with the Option 1. Maybe it is not the proper time to do SBI standardization work in COMS now, not matter in terms of opportunity or technology. About the Option 3, do you mean we can discuss different situations of SBI according to respenctive technologies in information model that can be delivered to multi-domains ( e.g. ACTN, Detnet...) ? Or what you want to say is the classification of technology domains? Kind Regards Lei Wang ________________________________ leiw0920@outlook.com<mailto:leiw0920@outlook.com> From: qiangli (D)<mailto:qiangli3@huawei.com> Date: 2017-12-21 17:02 To: Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)<mailto:hannu.flinck@nokia-bell-labs.com>; NetSlices@ietf.org<mailto:NetSlices@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface Hi Hannu and others, Thank you for your comments. As you and Diego mentioned, the standardization of southbound interface is a sensitive matter, we’d better avoid infringing other WGs/RGs. To solve this issue, maybe we should figure out “Is it possible to have a uniform/standard mapping interface to adapt to a variety of implementation technologies?” first. If Pedro is right, such uniform interface does exist, then it’s not a big deal to standardize it IMHO. Otherwise, I think we may need to consider which option listed below will be better: Option 1: No standardization work on southbound interface, at least before IETF 101 Option 2: Separately analyze all specific technologies as you have done -- ACTN [un-checked], NFV [checked], then how about SFC, VPN…? Option 3: Classify technologies (e.g., providing connectivity, provide VNF….) , then discuss for each classification. I personally prefer 1 or 3, what’s your opinion? Best regards, Cristina QIANG From: Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo) [mailto:hannu.flinck@nokia-bell-labs.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 10:33 PM To: qiangli (D) <qiangli3@huawei.com<mailto:qiangli3@huawei.com>>; NetSlices@ietf.org<mailto:NetSlices@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface Hello Cristina and others, I would suggest that COMS/ATCN interface mapping would be developed in the TEAS WG since that is an IETF WG, is also alluding to slicing topics, has related specifications and the expertise of the transport networks. However, NFVO related work is currently within NVFRG where the slicing work is a minor subset of much larger territory of what the RG is discussing. Therefore, it would be better to do such focused work in COMS when and if it becomes an IETF WG. Best regards Hannu From: Netslices [mailto:netslices-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of qiangli (D) Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:41 AM To: NetSlices@ietf.org<mailto:NetSlices@ietf.org> Subject: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface Hi All, This email is want to collect your opinion on the following issue: Do we need to standardize the Southbound/Mapping interface of a network slice aware system in COMS? Or do you think this work should be carried out in existing WGs/RGs? (e.g., mapping interface between COMS and ACTN, mapping interface between COMS and NFVO) Best regards, Cristina QIANG
- [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Inte… qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Pedro Martinez-Julia
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Diego R. Lopez
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Pedro Martinez-Julia
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Pedro Martinez-Julia
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Liang GENG
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Liang GENG
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Lei Wang
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Liang GENG
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Liang GENG
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Liang GENG
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Leeyoung
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping … qiangli (D)