Re: [Netslices] netslicing/netslices: Potential next steps

Benoit & Jeff,

Thanks for your clear advices and instructions, which we will follow. For me, a unified slice template/object and its management are modest work for IETF to start work. My team is working on such design and correspondent implementation. The implementation is also including orchestration algorithms and mapping the unified slice template/object to one/multiple specific network infrastructures, for which VPN, Virtual router, Detnet, ACTN, and other new technologies are in our consideration. We are planning a demonstration on this for IETF 100 Bits-N-Bites, too.

Many thanks and best regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netslices [mailto:netslices-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 1:48 AM
> To: Benoit Claise; NetSlices@ietf.org; Jari Arkko
> Cc: IAB
> Subject: Re: [Netslices] netslicing/netslices: Potential next steps
> 
> Benoit,
> 
> Thanks for sharing.
> As discussed – we will continue working towards narrowed down and realistic
> set of requirements towards IETF, that should guide all the great work
> happening across different area’s/wg’s.
> 
> >From IAB that would be Jari and myself.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff (as the BoF IAB shepherd)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netslices <netslices-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Benoit Claise
> <bclaise@cisco.com>
> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:32
> To: <NetSlices@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Netslices] netslicing/netslices: Potential next steps
> 
>     Dear all,
> 
>     Thanks for all who contributed to the netslicing BoF: the document
>     authors, the presenters, the participants, and the chairs. During this
>     week, next to BoF itself, I've had multiple opportunities to speak about
>     netslicing, with some BoF proponents, with the IAB shepherds, and with
>     the IESG/IAB on Friday afternoon, etc. This helped me understanding the
>     different points of views and clarified some aspects.
> 
>     It's true that the network slicing has got a specific meaning in the
>     context of 5G, but, as Georg (as liaison) stressed: there are no 3GPP
>     requirements for the IETF at this point in time. Nevertheless, there are
>     parts that the IETF should look at. And there are parts of the network
>     slicing concept that are already being worked on at the IETF. ACTN comes
>     to mind, but also DETNET, and I heard of VPN+. The individual work in
>     WGs should continue and potentially be extended.
> 
>     Note that I carefully used the "network slicing concept" term in the
>     previous sentence. As one important next step, it would nice to focus on
>     a common "network slicing" definition, at least its meaning for the IETF.
> 
>     As mentioned during the BoF, this is not the IETF role to define a
>     complete orchestrator, controller, or NMS/OSS. This should be developed
>     by an opensource project. However, what would be a practical next step
>     is to specify a kind of network slicing template, with the envisioned
>     required parameters. From there, we could determine what's missing
> when
>     we try to map it to a specific (IETF) technologies.
> 
>     Let me make up an (hopefully simple) example: I would like to have a
>     network slice with a guaranteed bandwidth b, end-to-end jitter j, packet
>     loss p, end-to-end max delay d. Do we even those abilities in the
>     underlying technologies?
> 
>     Regards, Benoit (as the BoF responsible AD)
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Netslices mailing list
>     Netslices@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netslices mailing list
> Netslices@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices