Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Figure in the ACTN Applicability section

["Luis M. Contreras" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

from this discussion my take away is that several interpretations of the
mapping between TSC and ACTN could be possible and valid (at least, there
is not a unique mapping).

With that in mind, I think it is confusing to keep the mapping in section 4
of the framework document. I would prefer to move it to another document
reporting all possible mappings, or at least to an annex. I think we are
trying to explain TSC from ACTN eyes, but probably it is better for the TSC
framework document to think on TSC by itself and later on to see how
existing solutions fit to it (doing the reverse, that is, think how TSC
fits to existing solutions can condition the behavior/interfaces/purpose of
TSC).

Best regards

Luis

El mié., 13 may. 2020 a las 16:38, Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) (<
[e-mail]>) escribió:

> Hi Dhruv, Haomian, all,
>
>
>
> First an answer for point (1) from Dhruv, definitely I agree .
>
> About point (2) , the fact SBI is mapped to a service delivery or network
> configuration model is important because it would help to clarify the role
> of TSC .
>
> When in ACTN we have introduced the terms MDSC-H and MDSC-L, this was done
> above all in the context of scalability , when a hierarchy structure of
> MDSC could be foreseen.
>
> In my view, the real improvement  triggered by Italo mail, and my and
> others comments as well, was to clarify functionality mapping with respect
> interface, so LxSM as customer service model has been considered in the
> context of NBI not as SBI as previously done.
>
> Now in the view of possible mapping of functionality I think in RFC 8453
> there is a picture that could be better mapped in the TS context and TSC
> functionality in particular.
>
>
>
> This is a question for all for my understanding, if what is foreseen for
> TSC functionality is better represented by just a service delivery model at
> SBI (MPI in the picture here) or TSC can do more , and SBI can be better
> represented by Network configuration model.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Sergio
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 2:53 PM
> To: Zhenghaomian <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Eric Gray <eric.gray=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; Luis M. Contreras <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Figure in the ACTN Applicability section
>
>
>
> Hi Luis, Haomian,
>
>
>
> Few comments on mapping with RFC 8305 -
>
>
>
> (1) From the point of view of the network (and taking RFC 8305 as
> reference), I would consider the higher level E2E system as the RFC 8305's
> "customer" and map customer service model to the TSC NBI (and CMI). The
> interface between Customer box in our figure (center-top) and the higher
> level system is out of scope for our work in the IETF.
>
>
>
> (2) If we agree on (1), then the TSC SBI could map to a service delivery
> or network configuration based on the hierarchy of the network controllers
> (as mentioned by Haomian).
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> We also need to make a change in definition draft where we describe
> TSC-SBI - LxSM yang models are mentioned as example there [See
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-01#section-5.2
> ].
>
>
>
> As mentioned by Sergio, this was the main reason for the earlier mapping!
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 7:43 AM Zhenghaomian <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi, Luis, Eric, All,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for the effort on making the mapping more complete. Actually I
> think both the updated proposal from {Eric, Dhruv, John} and the one from
> Luis are applicable in some cases, and how to deploy is fully dependent on
> the choice of implementation. Compared with the previous version in section
> 4 of draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-03, the main improvement is ‘TS-NBI is
> using technology-agnostic models’, as said by Eric.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > According to our experience in ACTN deployment, there are flexibilities
> on how many hierarchies of MDSC is needed, depending on the functionality
> of each hierarchy and the scalability of the network. I believe none of us
> are trying to exclude any implementation, neither the proposal from Eric
> nor Luis. So a more generic proposal is shown as follow, thoughts?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Service Model in                                              ACTN
>
> >
>
> >  Transport Slice        Transport Slice Framework           Terminology
>
> >
>
> > Framework [RFC8309]                                         and Concepts
>
> >
>
> > -------------          -------------------------           ------------
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >                  |             Customer               |  |
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >    Customer                        A                     |
>
> >
>
> >    Service                         |
>
> >
>
> >    Model                           V                     |
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >                  |      A highter level system        |  |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >                  |(e.g e2e network slice orchestrator)| ===> | CNC |
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >    Service                         A                            A
>
> >
>
> >    Delivery                        | TSC NBI             |      | CMI
>
> >
>
> >    Model                           V                            V (LxSM)
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >                  |      Transport Slice Controller    | ===> | MDSC-H|
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >    Network                         A                            A
>
> >
>
> >    Configuration                   | TSC SBI             |      |
>
> >
>
> >    Model                           V                            V
>
> >
>
> >                  +-----------------------------------+   |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >                  |                                   |  ===> |MDSC-L |
>
> >
>
> >                  |                                   |   |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >                  |                                   |           A
>
> >
>
> >                  |        Network Controller(s)      |   |       | MPI
>
> >
>
> >                  |                                   |           V
>
> >
>
> >                  |                                   |   |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >                  |                                   |  ===> | PNC |
>
> >
>
> >                  +-----------------------------------+   |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > My 2 cents,
>
> >
>
> > Haomian
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 发件人: Teas-ns-dt [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>] 代表 Luis M.
>
> > Contreras
>
> > 发送时间: 2020年5月13日 0:03
>
> > 收件人: Eric Gray <eric.gray=[e-mail]>
>
> > 抄送: [e-mail]
>
> > 主题: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Figure in the ACTN Applicability section
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > (My apologies for the mail before, with the Confidential Notes by
> default. Please, ignore it. Repeating mail here).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hi Eric, all,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for addressing this point.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have some few comments and suggestions.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1/ Regarding the figure, I think that as it is now mix things a bit. In
> my personal subjective view I think it provides a view of how to fit TSC
> into ACTN rather in the other way around. My suggestion would be to depict
> the comparison as in the figure below (ignore the service model naming by
> now for this point). I think it becomes more clear, but again this is
> subjective, of course.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2/ Regarding the service model naming. I have revisited RFC8309 and I
> think that the proper mapping to service models in the case of TSC would be
> the one proposed in the figure below on the left-hand side (please, check
> Figure 3 in RFC8309).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Here is the figure I propose.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Service Model in                                              ACTN
>
> >
>
> >  Transport Slice        Transport Slice Framework           Terminology
>
> >
>
> > Framework [RFC8309]                                         and Concepts
>
> >
>
> > -------------          -------------------------           ------------
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >                  |             Customer               |  |
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >    Customer                        A                     |
>
> >
>
> >    Service                         |
>
> >
>
> >    Model                           V                     |
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >                  |      A highter level system        |  |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >                  |(e.g e2e network slice orchestrator)| ===> | CNC |
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >    Service                         A                            A
>
> >
>
> >    Delivery                        | TSC NBI             |      | CMI
>
> >
>
> >    Model                           V                            V (LxSM)
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >                  |      Transport Slice Controller    | ===> | MDSC-H|
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >                                    A                            A
>
> >
>
> >                                    |                     |      |
>
> >
>
> >                                    |                            V
>
> >
>
> >    Network                         |                     |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >    Configuration                   | TSC SBI                 |MDSC-L |
>
> >
>
> >    Model                           |                     |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >                                   |                            A
>
> >
>
> >                                    |                     |      | MPI
>
> >
>
> >                                    V                            V (LxNM)
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >                  |        Network Controller(s)       | ===> | PNC |
>
> >
>
> >                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The text you propose depends totally on the final figure and the
> consideration of the service models that apply, so I would prefer to
> discuss first about the figure and once it is closed to discuss the text,
> to ensure consistency.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Luis
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > El mar., 12 may. 2020 a las 16:03, Eric Gray (<
> eric.gray=[e-mail]>) escribió:
>
> >
>
> > John and I had a discussion with Dhruv about some ambiguity in the
> relationship between some of the entities in the ACTN architecture and the
> related concepts in our NS-DT work in the Framework draft.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The upshot is that there is a bit of a slushy relationship between some
> of the terms that we (the NS design team) have defined (see the definitions
> draft) and loosely corresponding concepts defined in ACTN.  In particular,
> there are currently issues with the positioning of the TSC as directly
> analogous to MDSC, impacting interfaces between these logical components as
> well.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > After a few iterations in discussion, Dhruv, John and I agreed to
> propose a replacement figure and text as shown immediately below.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >        +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >        |             Customer               |  |
>
> >
>
> >        +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >                          A                     |     ACTN
>
> >
>
> >                          |                        Terminology
>
> >
>
> >                          V                     |  and Concepts
>
> >
>
> >        +------------------------------------+
>
> >
>
> >        |      A highter level system        |  |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >        |(e.g e2e network slice orchestrator)| ===> | CNC |
>
> >
>
> >        +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >                          A                            A
>
> >
>
> >                          | TSC NBI             |      | CMI
>
> >
>
> >                          V                            V (LxSM)
>
> >
>
> >        +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >        |      Transport Slice Controller    | ===> | MDSC-H|
>
> >
>
> >        +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >                          A                            A
>
> >
>
> >                          | TSC SBI (LxNM)      |      |
>
> >
>
> >                          V                            V
>
> >
>
> >        +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >        |        Network Controller(s)       | ===> |MDSC-L |
>
> >
>
> >        +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
> >
>
> >                                                       A
>
> >
>
> >                 Terminology/Concepts           |      | MPI
>
> >
>
> >                Used in this Document                  V
>
> >
>
> >                                                |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >                                                    | PNC |
>
> >
>
> >                                                |   +-----+
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We would also add further clarifying text along the lines of:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The TS-NBI would be at the same level as the customer service models
> (LxSM), except that it uses a technology agnostic service model where as
> LxSM does not.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We add hierarchy to the MDSC concept in this figure so that the mapping
> with LxNM might be easier to see.  But the TSC could also directly interact
> with multiple domain controllers in which case we have a single MDSC.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If nobody objects, or has additional input they would like to provide,
> we would like to go ahead and make this change to the Framework draft.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If necessary, we can discuss this at the meeting on Thursday (14 May).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > Eric
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Teas-ns-dt mailing list
>
> > [e-mail]
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > ___________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > Luis M. Contreras
>
> >
>
> > [e-mail]
>
> >
>
> > [e-mail]
>
> >
>
> > Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Teas-ns-dt mailing list
>
> > [e-mail]
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt
>
>
>
> --
>
> Teas-ns-dt mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt
>


-- 
___________________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica