IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netslices] Reliability & Availability in NetSling

Pedro Martinez-Julia <pedro@nict.go.jp> Thu, 10 August 2017 04:42 UTC

Return-Path: <pedro@nict.go.jp>
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 889C613254B for <netslices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 Avg7m9XSvw1Q for <netslices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:232:300::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF613132542 for <netslices@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id v7A4g2oA024234; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:42:02 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail2.nict.go.jp (mail2.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.15]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id v7A4g2CC024230; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:42:02 +0900 (JST)
Received: from spectre (unknown [133.243.115.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail Spool Server2) with ESMTPS id E6B32C693; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:42:01 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:42:00 +0900
From: Pedro Martinez-Julia <pedro@nict.go.jp>
To: GENG Liang <liang.geng@hotmail.com>
Cc: "'qiangli (D)'" <qiangli3@huawei.com>, "netslices@ietf.org" <netslices@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170810044200.GB1828@spectre>
References: <06C389826B926F48A557D5DB5A54C4ED2A5743F7@dggemi509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <TY1PR06MB0928FED40F8D136737C6036187880@TY1PR06MB0928.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <TY1PR06MB0928FED40F8D136737C6036187880@TY1PR06MB0928.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at zenith2
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netslices/vW_kxu6eS8NoNj5rHfwIlDA3Nd4>
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 04:42:16 -0000

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


-- 
Pedro Martinez-Julia
Network Science and Convergence Device Technology Laboratory
Network System Research Institute
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)
4-2-1, Nukui-Kitamachi, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795, Japan
Email: pedro@nict.go.jp
---------------------------------------------------------
*** Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ***

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email