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

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Tue, 22 December 2015 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89E91A8AC1 for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 3XxJq5MC0fMG for <stackevo-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06D211A8AC0 for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id q63so4861033pfb.0 for <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=W6SWE1S5XDhsjmbrN/I+EXL0pt3uTcbgt+YEOOCES3Y=; b=qltbGwlvF+RT19rdCDRHButuwyiJ4WjFPZJcpEppsud4+ax/HFhe6DWV3pEAQtfrTk FscGeBgh88d1c9N4olkOts3WBDMSUto2/hMHeobV1BoQinL+qWF0QMI6a4rI5x3J6J2Y 7vNY6D5vdOW1TwQExY71V5cEzN4yqJZcPRZZro4bL7YCHjS0UTj2pulzFudBHcSKFCoV Jy77fg49BO1o47hnoh8X3m79arIwcI2a4h2X9y+viZR/ySWl5Db7q3xy5xpH02uD0Hkn y5/drANlA8+tehZ/MwjMfDmWifV4I7K3J84PL1xgIHsUTqm/zusjs71hH+vHqz4l5tso HDAg==
X-Received: by 10.98.86.195 with SMTP id h64mr38570178pfj.96.1450813280681; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.10.2] (mobile-166-171-251-206.mycingular.net. [166.171.251.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b26sm42965567pfd.6.2015.12.22.11.41.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:18 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <26426B4FF145B449A3D1FAC13C6B297833BBDB31@YYZEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:41:20 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <55653654-B03F-400B-B5B4-3A8CFA83BC74@gmail.com>
References: <82AB329A76E2484D934BBCA77E9F5249A682F744@Hydra.office.hd> <CAEeTej+pHehyX7+qteogQcAkCcJKYhZoQKStuXGmAzWRj1_rXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F8355406-91C7-4B96-995C-1AD9D7997DC1@kcl.ac.uk> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657DB3A7F@dfweml701-chm> <56789156.2020704@isi.edu> <6EE22057-5EB9-4489-A50D-7B92DA2B96AF@gmail.com> <5679857D.9000602@isi.edu> <26426B4FF145B449A3D1FAC13C6B297833BBDB31@YYZEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
To: Bill Gage <Bill.Gage@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stackevo-discuss/O1I3EdSilY7mgSyX9MxDvAXtIeY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 05:00:44 -0800
Cc: "stackevo-discuss@iab.org" <stackevo-discuss@iab.org>, "5gangip@ietf.org" <5gangip@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [Stackevo-discuss] [5gangip] 5G: It's the Network, Stupid
X-BeenThere: stackevo-discuss@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Stack Evolution Discussion List <stackevo-discuss.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stackevo-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:stackevo-discuss@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo-discuss>, <mailto:stackevo-discuss-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:41:22 -0000

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 <Bill.Gage@huawei.com> 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:touch@isi.edu]
>> 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 <touch@isi.edu> 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
>>>> 
>