Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lei Wang, Cristina, all,

i think it is important, first of all, to decide which type of model you want to address. The drawing from Cristina (from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained/)   is an excellent starting point.
In my opinion you should not try to map "more or less" what you have with one of the models below, but on the other side discuss which one you want to address (e.g. Service Delivery Model) and then proceed on that path.
That said, if I correctly understood you don't want to address the models on the SBI of the network orchestrator (i.e. Network configuration model or device model), hence you need to decide if you want to build a service delivery model or a service model (to start with).
BR
Daniele

[cid:image001.png@01D38977.9E8312A0]

From: Netslices [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Liang GENG
Sent: martedì 9 gennaio 2018 16:43
To: qiangli (D) <[e-mail]>om>; Lei Wang <[e-mail]>om>; NetSlices <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface


Hi Cristina, Hannu and Lei,



I would like to think it in this way. Please see if this make sense to you.



-It is preferred in COMS NOT to define network configuration model (SBI) for each technology domains.

-It may be preferred in COMS to do some sort of categorization based on the type of resources at the level of information model. This makes it easier for different domain controllers to define specific network configuration models (SBI of COMS, or "mappings" in previous discussion in this tread )

-It may be preferred in COMS to define a generic network configuration model that is used for SBI with resources directly managed by COMS.



What do you think?







________________________________
From: Netslices <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of qiangli (D) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 04 January 2018 17:11:29
To: Lei Wang; NetSlices
Subject: Re: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface


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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lei Wang
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 3:12 PM
To: qiangli (D) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; NetSlices <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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





________________________________

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>



From: qiangli (D)<mailto:[e-mail]>

Date: 2017-12-21 17:02

To: Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

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:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 10:33 PM
To: qiangli (D) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of qiangli (D)
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:41 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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