Re: [Stackevo-discuss] [5gangip] 5G: It's the Network, Stupid

[Bill Gage <[e-mail]>]

I didn't say that you couldn't use VPN technology to realise a slice, I just said that a slice may encompass more that what one usually associates with the term "VPN". A slice may pull in technologies associated with SFC, NFV, TE, SDN, and a dozen other TLAs ;-)

Cheers ...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [5gangip] [Stackevo-discuss] 5G: It's the Network, Stupid
> 
> I think your difference is subtle where in fact you a virtual network and
> a VPN is one of the same thing. And you can use VPN technology (an overlay
> with segmentation of hosts, routers, and functions) to satisfy the
> requirements below.
> 
> Dino
> 
> > On Dec 22, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Bill Gage <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > In the (5G) wireless world, a "network slice" means a collection of
> service functions, network resources and radio access configurations that
> are combined together to meet the requirements of a specific use case or
> business model. For example, there may be a network slice for video
> traffic, a slice for M2M traffic, and a slice for regular web browsing
> traffic.
> >
> > Each network slice may involve a specific set of (virtual) network
> functions and each slice is designed to operate in isolation so that
> operations in one slice do not negatively impact services in other slices.
> It is essentially a traffic- and service-management tool.
> >
> > So yes, a slice is a form of virtual network but not a VPN per se (in
> the enterprise or multi-tenant sense). A slice may be something that a
> mobile operator uses internally to manage different types of traffic, or
> it may be something used to provide a VPN-like service to a particular
> customer (e.g. for an MVNO overlay).
> >
> > Like it or not, "network slice" seems to the name that various
> organisations have given to this concept.
> >
> > Cheers ...
> >
> > [I tried to trim the receiver list just a little :-]
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 12:17 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [5gangip] [Stackevo-discuss] [gaia] 5G: It's the Network,
> >> Stupid
> >>
> >> VPNs often have a lot of baggage, notably that an end system can belong
> >> to only one at a time.
> >>
> >> Slices have the baggage that a process can belong to only one slice at
> a
> >> time.
> >>
> >> I don't know if we strictly need a new term - virtual networks seems
> >> fine to me (which, IMO, are synonymous with overlays) - but VPNs of all
> >> types and slices have this baggage that is useful to avoid.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On 12/22/2015 8:57 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> >>> Why does yet another term need to be defined for what has been
> >> traditionally called a multi-tenant VPN.
> >>>
> >>> Dino
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/17/2015 9:49 AM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> >>>>> I strongly support the concept of network slicing for Applications
> or
> >> IoT networks.
> >>>>
> >>>> FWIW, I do not - in specific, I support the notion of per-service
> >>>> overlays, but would not call them "slices".
> >>>>
> >>>> Slices are an artifact of an OS-view of the network. It's a network
> >>>> partitioning model that considers cross-overlay interaction only as a
> >>>> violation of the model itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> We should be careful to consider that networks end at network
> >> interfaces
> >>>> and network interface names, not OS partitions - and OS partitions
> are
> >>>> the baggage that comes with the term "slice".
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >