Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in NetSling
Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 10 August 2017 09:57 UTC
Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 CC326132679 for <netslices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 5a_1vRxPyNea for <netslices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 37A2113209C for <netslices@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id k20so19821390wmg.0 for <netslices@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=tkCx6BMkQo73wMGB8DN/WNlBYyiE7/HDGEbKXJaU43A=; b=ar6dPhISE8ftisBZ2yWygFKz4Md7pojyGkeDSMr7Sp6DEvzFwSwbHdnyf3PJxzD5ao i1UyizHwLBhRh/sqrgu24DT52jbYflSfwznda1HtcJKif7xX/mJuZ5GJzzygAlWMydiz 2v2t6a6Y6WFOM2VnZvZuPIZU1zQDhslQfh9de/006oSflLbslBQDTsye2x6fckrpsLVf /INxFF999JryO8J4/cqsqXkCROEsQzTlRRb79omvsaQH7YVx56kMtN8eqagDDU6CyTvJ HpmuE0dl7tasKSEcVIbrZGCP9I7tQW4HmxcDW1SyjjOeiAVlc9JuLQUXwp9+HmFb13ie haAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=tkCx6BMkQo73wMGB8DN/WNlBYyiE7/HDGEbKXJaU43A=; b=iaysdHlhFTb6PCFV6nIAOAA1IlpLo+mJU3YLWnCaJbox1Xc3Cwt+FP7kOSW8QGsvuM 13Urk8ztlX2VEQrtfb/vXqTHWZlaKQRvDXst2tY5NcAYNWeL8ugs5V6wyiij9xyvE72G JK+I5/LScLEpWOzsI7ON0R+y7jZtoyS10dt0wW5hC5Pnxyq1G3lO9XzFvT67L26Xs9Fv 5t8TgOEhcA1KoiXOBH/KmUml0YYBTBgyRU84hjf0+JHX6bPI0PrEzojw7uqWgUT79wFN JO30ImkMUGFVyi/HS/uLN8t9UGmCV2UkEV8FD2GP6HNiFfLLsjUTiELEMS1qq+meNE4M qWpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jqCom0H5U4XFHTShn3Ussj18ltgECplsMRPHmXvMOcQp6oc3U/ X+y3ap5l9+WgA61LY3M=
X-Received: by 10.28.178.75 with SMTP id b72mr6795979wmf.55.1502359071445; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m189sm28819wmb.9.2017.08.10.02.57.50 for <netslices@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: netslices@ietf.org
References: <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED2A5743F7@dggemi509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <TY1PR06MB0928FED40F8D136737C6036187880@TY1PR06MB0928.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20170810044200.GB1828@spectre>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17a7e36c-21c7-93ef-8058-573019280dfc@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:57:47 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170810044200.GB1828@spectre>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9379BB7DE6D355342DCC149D"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netslices/a6lW4YAf_EPz42JO7xDKrXxcwfI>
Subject: Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in NetSling
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, 10 Aug 2017 09:57:56 -0000
In general at IETF we associate reliable with the probability of packet delivery, and a reliable transport protocol is one that retries (at a cost of delay) until the packet is delivered or other factors intervene. Availability tends to refer to the ability of the network to receive packets for attempted delivery. I looked for a formal definition in IPPM which is the WG that is concerned with measuring such things but could not find a definition. From the ITU we can find: *Term*:availability (performance) *Definition*:The ability of an item to be in a state to perform a required function under given conditions at a given instant of time or over a given time interval, assuming that the required external resources are provided. NOTE 1 – This ability depends on the combined aspects of the reliability performance, the maintainability performance and the maintenance support performance. NOTE 2 – Required external resources, other than maintenance resources do not affect the availability performance of the item. *Term*:reliability (performance) *Definition*:The ability of an item to perform a required function under given conditions for a given time interval. NOTE 1 – It is generally assumed that the item is in a state to perform this required function at the beginning of the time interval. NOTE 2 – Generally, reliability performance is quantified using appropriate measures. In some applications, these measures include an expression of reliability performance as a probability, which is also called reliability. or *Term*:reliability characteristic *Definition*:The Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) to maintain a defined QOS requirement. - Stewart On 10/08/2017 05:42, Pedro Martinez-Julia wrote: > Dear all, > > I personally think it is better to use the industrial definitions but, > being purist, we can find important differences between them. While > availability is the probability for a system to work as expected in some > period of time (99.999% of time), reliability is a broader term that > refers to the different situations in which a system will be able to > overcome without breaking. In some cases, the latter can incorporate the > former, but not in all of them. > > For network slicing we can keep the definition commonly used by industry > with the necessary details to make clear the aspects that differentiate > them. I would keep "working as expected for some period of time" related > to availability and "resistant to disparate situations" to reliability. > > Regards, > Pedro > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:44:09AM +0000, GENG Liang wrote: >> Hi Cristina, >> >> Interestingly we were discussing this confusion with few industrial partners recently. In telecommunication language we normally use "Reliability" to refer the probability a network is stably run (i.e. 99.999% of time). This is also regarded as network "Availability". However, "Reliability" in industrial verticals is more comprehensive - including not only network availability parameter but also mechanics, electricity etc. >> >> Personally I think, network slicing is still looking at network regime where I believe Reliability means the percentage of time a connection is available. But we you sell this concept to industrial verticals, they may think differently. >> >> ________________________________ >> Liang GENG >> China Mobile Research Institute >> >> From: qiangli (D)<mailto:qiangli3@huawei.com> >> Date: 2017-08-10 10:04 >> To: netslices@ietf.org<mailto:netslices@ietf.org> >> Subject: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in NetSling >> Hi All, >> >> I was confused when I was reading some NetSlicing related materials. It seems that “Reliability” supported by Netslicing refers to the probability that a network slice could work stably, or other similar metrics. But, shouldn’t this be the defination of “Availability”? Then what does reliability mean in NetSlicing? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Cristina QIANG >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Netslices mailing list >> Netslices@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices >
- [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in NetSling qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in Net… GENG Liang
- Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in Net… Pedro Martinez-Julia
- Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in Net… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in Net… qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in Net… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in Net… qiangli (D)
- Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in Net… Stewart Bryant