Network slicing side meeting at IETF97

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

Following on from the recent discussions on network slicing, it seems useful to have a side meeting during next week's IETF to see if we can establish a common view on the definition and scope of network slicing, what work is currently being undertaken in the IETF on this problem space, and what (if any) new IETF work would be needed to create deployable network solutions.

To that end we propose a side meeting on the topic of network slicing and have got a room to have this discussion on the Tuesday evening of the IETF week.
 
Meeting Name: 5G Network Slicing Side Meeting 
Assigned Room: Studio 3 
Assigned Date: 11/15/2016 (Tuesday)
Assigned Time: 19:00 - 21:00

To make the most of this time, it would be useful if a few of us introduce to the rest our thoughts on the subject before having an open discussion. We have a projector, and so those introducing an aspect of this problem can use slides, but slides are not required.

The topics we have so far are:
  
1.  Network slicing problem statement  - Stewart Bryant
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-network-slicing-problem-statement-00

2.  Autonomic slicing networking  - Alex Galis
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-galis-anima-autonomic-slice-networking-00

3.  Multicast and mobility service on demand with network slicing  - Truong-Xuan Do
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuan-dmm-multicast-mobility-slicing-00

If you have experiences/understanding of network slicing related use cases, requirements or problems etc., we welcome their inclusion in the agenda to help bring the rest up to speed.

Following that, we propose an open discussion to establish whether there are work items that we need to get included in any existing IETF WG charter, or whether we need to initiate any new work in the IETF.

If you have comments on our proposed agenda, or you want to introduce an aspect of the problem to the rest of the group, then please contact us with name of the topic and how long you need to talk about it.

Many thanks and best regards,

Jie/Stewart/Mach


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 11:22 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy)
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Network Slicing - a suggestion that we meet to discuss in Seoul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We were trying to pull together a problem statement for network slicing in a 5G
> context to understand how well the current IETF protocols address this
> problem, what their short comings might be, and what IETF work is necessary
> to have a deployable protocol suite to address this need.
> 
> We have set down our first thoughts in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-network-slicing-problem-statement-00
> 
> We find that there are a number of groups doing similar work throughout the
> IETF.
> 
> The following comprehensive draft was directed at the ANIMA WG
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galis-anima-autonomic-slice-networking/
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vonhugo-5gangip-ip-issues-00
> is a detailed discussion the position of network slicing in a contest of next
> generation networks
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuan-dmm-multicast-mobility-slicing-00
> looks at multicasting in a sliced context
> 
> and
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-01
> looks at slicing in a context of traffic engineering.
> 
> Our thoughts are that network slicing spans a number of deployment scenarios,
> and has a number of diverse applications, ranging from fragile applications,
> through to providing enhanced security and availability.
> 
> Elements of the problem and the resultant solution have a close affinity to
> DETNET. There is clearly an affinity with VPN technologies, although none of
> the existing VPNs provide the degree of isolation that we think is required.
> 
> We note that there seems to be no natural home for all of the aspects of this
> problem.
> 
> It therefore seems that if would be a good idea for those interested in this
> problem to get together at some point during IETF to swap notes and share our
> views on the problem space and how to move forward with addressing it.
> 
> Is there any interest in meeting up to discuss this in Seoul?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Stewart/Mach/Jie
> 
> 
>