Re: [Teas-ns-dt] FW: Progress of Slicing Design Team and overlap with existing TEAS work

Adrian,

              Hope you are finding the skiing good.

              I think there is a general agreement (at least in principal) that the intent should be to not go around re-inventing wheels.

              But you are correct that there is some tugging (and maybe even yanking) on the subject of goals for the DT.  Lou has even weighed in on the discussion at least once.

              I don't think there is anyone, however, who wants to duplicate the work being done on VPN+, or indulge in a turf-stealing effort in that area.

              Part of the reason for the efforts to steer the work down different avenues is because (I suspect) different folks on the DT had differing ideas about what the effort was started to achieve.  In at least a few cases, people felt that (at least some aspects of) the effort were driven by a perceived need to define how (whatever it is that we want to use for) transport (network) slices would be managed - for instance - in support of mobility service management for 3GPP defined Network Slicing.  Another example would be management for the virtual topologies that would exist as overlays in a DC, irrespective of the specific technologies (etc.) used to provide the overlay topologies (I'm sure we could all list of several candidate technologies).

              There is (I feel) agreement that there should be some sort of abstraction defined to separate the NS service requirements from the details of the underlying technology (or technologies).  Where there is not so much uniform agreement is in whether or not there is sufficient understanding in the DT of the undertake (at this time) the definition of a Northbound interface, and related information/data models, if any new ones are required, or even if it the task of this specific DT to undertake this work once there is sufficient understanding.

              And of course there is some effort in course-correction that relates to trying to steer the work toward stating a preference for (or possibly an endorsement of) specific technologies of choice (depending on who is choosing) - VPN+ for instance - to be used for transport (network) slices.

              We had made some strides in agreeing (or at least compromising) on terminology and definitions - though there is still work to do, and there is momentum to overcome (in the form of "DT drafts" that may not have used terminology and definitions consistent with the progress made).

              I am looking forward to re-starting the meetings this year and I appreciate your apparent effort to kick-off some discussion.

😊

--

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas-ns-dt <teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:39 AM
To: teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
Subject: [Teas-ns-dt] FW: Progress of Slicing Design Team and overlap with existing TEAS work

Hi NS-DT,

I sent Jari a message way back in the last decade, but I know he has been busy skiing (curiously, on the same slopes as me, but not with me - perhaps I should have hunted him down).

I'm copying the message here to see whether anyone has any thoughts.

Thanks,

Adrian

-----Original Message-----

From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>>

Sent: 27 December 2019 19:29

To: jari.arkko@piuha.net<mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>

Cc: jari.arkko@ericsson.com<mailto:jari.arkko@ericsson.com>

Subject: Progress of Slicing Design Team and overlap with existing TEAS work

Hi Jari,

Happy New Year!

I confess, I have not been following "your" Design Team closely. I should because I'm paid so very much to be the TEAS Technical Advisor. But I have also been overcome by the need to be in the Alps 😊

I'm a little puzzled where the DT is going. There seems to be a lot of pulling in different directions from the members of the team with some talking about making a "Northbound Interface" for requesting/managing slices, and some talking about a framework that describes what slicing is (presumably from the perspective of the IP network and not the 5G service). Even some of the team got so excited that they posted a "design team" draft that wasn't a design team draft!

You're no doubt aware of draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn. I've been trying to nurture this and direct the authors to do good things with it. The document is not a technology solution, but a set of observations and a framework that explains how the concept of a "slice" looks very much like a VPN (in that it is a connectivity service between a set of end points with some guarantee of service) but offers more specific service behaviours.

I would like not to get into an "arms race" between this draft and the output of the Design Team where each set of authors updates their document to steal turf from the other: that might produce a lot of good thought and work, but would also involve a fair bit of stress and duplicated effort. Instead there is probably some potential for synergy. But I am struggling to know exactly what the DT is intending to produce. The charter and the most recent status (in Singapore) seems to suggest that the DT is still in the phase of working out what it needs to / should document.

Any thoughts on a way forward?

Thanks,

Adrian

--

Teas-ns-dt mailing list

Teas-ns-dt@ietf.org<mailto:Teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt