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

["qiangli (D)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannu,

You're right. Still that question, If there does not exist a uniform mapping interface between COMS and various implementation technologies, I am afraid we are unable to analyze all possibilities.  That's why I suggested option 3 even I'm also not sure whether we can find out an appropriate classification method.

Best regards,

Cristina QIANG

From: Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 9:43 PM
To: qiangli (D) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Netslices] Open Issue I: SouthBound/Mapping Interface

Hello Cristina

I am not sure I understand the option 3 sufficiently. What would be the use of the classification? Should we identify classes of technologies that can be served by same/similar mapping based on the classification?

Best regards
Hannu

From: Netslices [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of qiangli (D)
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:02 AM
To: Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[e-mail]<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