Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Appendix text on isolation

[Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jie, and all,
Please review the final text, considering all the comments received so far.

--begin--
A.1.  On isolation requirements in a transport slice

   Transport slices are perceived as if slice was provisioned for the
   customer as a dedicated network with specific SLOs.  These committed
   SLOs for a given customer should be maintained during the life-time
   of the slice even in the face of potential disruptions.  Such
   disruptions include sudden traffic volume changes either from the
   customer itself or others, equipment failures in the service provider
   network, and various misbehaviors or attacks.

   The service provider needs to ensure that their network can provide
   the requested slices with the availability agreed with its customers.
   Some of the main technical approaches to ensuring guarantees are
   about network planning, managing capacity, prioritizing, policing or
   shaping customer traffic, selecting dedicated resources, and so on.

   One term that has commonly been used in this context is "isolation"
   and is also discussed in the [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn].

   A customer of transport slice may ask for traffic separation,
   selection of dedicated resources, or interference avoidance from
   other traffic.  The term "isolation" can refer to any or all of them.
   For instance, dedicated resources can help assure that traffic in
   other slices does not affect a given slice.  Simillarly, traffic
   separation can be provided by VPN technologies, and interference
   avoidance may be provided by mechanisms such as technical approaches
   mentioned in previous paragraph.  Moreover, these are some of the
   examples of particular realization of requirement for guarantees;
   other mechanisms may also be used.

   It should also be noted that neither above mentioned nor the other
   mechanisms can provide a 100% guarantee against outage problems.  To
   maintain protection against resource and equipment failures
   techniques such as redundancy are also needed.
--end--
Thanks
Kiran

From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:17 AM
To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>om>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]>rg>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Appendix text on isolation

Hi Kiran,

I understand your point, while since isolation is specified as a requirement of network slicing in other SDOs (e.g. GSMA, 3GPP), some customers may also ask for isolation in end-to-end network slice or transport slice. My opinion is it may be helpful to interpret and clarify isolation as more specific requirements in IETF and transport slice context (such as traffic separation, interference avoidance, etc.)

Another option is to describe the specific requirement and the corresponding realization directly: "A consumer of transport slice may ask for traffic separation or interference avoidance from other transport slices. The term "isolation" implies traffic separation, or interference avoidance, or both. Accordingly, from realization's perspective, ..."

Best regards,
Jie


From: Kiran Makhijani [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:05 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]<mailto:jari.arkko=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Appendix text on isolation

I am trying to say that customer should not have to ask for isolation but some abstraction of it. It may explicitly  ask for specific requirements but not isolation.

It's ok to go with your suggestion if its just me. Some text is repeated from 2nd para. So that still needs some work.

Regards,
Kiran
________________________________
From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:26:03 PM
To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]<mailto:jari.arkko=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: Appendix text on isolation


Hi Kiran and all,



Your concern is part of the reason that I suggest to describe the requirement and realization of isolation separately. Firstly, multi-dimension can help to clarify the different requirements related to isolation, such as traffic separation and interference avoidance, in my understanding both of which can be raised by a customer as requirement, and they do not reflect implementation details. Then the implementation-specific mechanisms could be briefly described to match each dimension of the requirement.



The sentence you added in the end of the paragraph looks good, while maybe it could be better if such requirement description be moved to the beginning of the paragraph. Please check the modified text below:



A consumer of transport slice may ask for isolation from other transport slices.

The term "isolation" can refer to multiple dimensions of requirements,

such as traffic separation, or interference avoidance, or both. Accordingly, from

realization's perspective, traffic separation can be provided by VPN technologies,

and interference avoidance may be provided by mechanisms such as capacity

planning, policing or shaping, priority mechanisms, selecting dedicated resources, and so on.



Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.



Best regards,

Jie



From: Kiran Makhijani [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 9:30 AM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]<mailto:jari.arkko=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Appendix text on isolation



Hi Jie, and all,

One argument against using isolation as an SLO is that it is an implementation specific detail that customer should not have to (always) concern with. So I am not comfortable with the use of 'multi-dimensional'.

One way to separate realization and customer requirement may be we can use business objective/case. May be we can add, one sentence  at the end of the original paragraph. What do you think?



The term "isolation" implies in part traffic separation (a common

feature in VPNs) and in part the selection of dedicated

resources. Dedicated resources can help assure that, for instance,

traffic in other slices does not affect a given slice. However, it

should also be noted that this is one particular realization of a

requirement for guarantees, and other mechanisms may also be used,

such as priority mechanisms or policing amount of traffic entering a

link from different sources. Business objectives may require a customer

to ask for explicit traffic separation or interference avoidance mechanisms.



-Kiran



From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:15 AM
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]<mailto:jari.arkko=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: Appendix text on isolation



Hi Jari,



Thanks for considering most of my comments in this revision.



And as mentioned yesterday and in my previous email, I'd like to suggest whether the description about isolation could be rephrased a bit, so as to better clarify the requirement and realization of isolation in different dimensions.



The term "isolation" can refer to multiple dimensions of requirements. A customer may ask for traffic separation or interference avoidance, or both. Accordingly, from realization's perspective, traffic separation can be provided by VPNs, and interference avoidance can be provided by mechanisms such as capacity planning, priority mechanisms, policing or shaping, selecting dedicated resources, and so on.



Hope this helps.



Best regards,

Jie



From: Teas-ns-dt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 4:26 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Appendix text on isolation



Here's a suggested 2nd revision of the suggested text, based on yesterday's comments on the call and Kiran's email.





Transport slices are perceived as if slice was provisioned for the

customer as a dedicated network with specific SLOs. These committed

SLOs for a given customer should be maintained during the life-time of

the slice even in the face of potential disruptions.  Such disruptions

include sudden traffic volume changes either from the customer itself

or others, equipment failures in the service provider network, and

various misbehaviors or attacks.



The service provider needs to ensure that their network can provide

the requested slices with the availability agreed with its

customers. Some of the main technical approaches to

ensuring guarantees are about network planning, managing capacity,

priority mechanisms, policing or shaping customer traffic, selecting

dedicated resources, and so on.



One term that has commonly been also used in this context is

"isolation". This is discussed further in the framework draft

[I-D.nsdt-teas-ns-framework] and has also been a topic in

[I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn].



The term "isolation" implies in part traffic separation (a common

feature in VPNs) and in part the selection of dedicated

resources. Dedicated resources can help assure that, for instance,

traffic in other slices does not affect a given slice. However, it

should also be noted that this is one particular realization of a

requirement for guarantees, and other mechanisms may also be used,

such as priority mechanisms or policing amount of traffic entering a

link from different sources.



It should also be noted that neither dedicated resources or the other

mechanisms can provide a 100% guarantee against problems.  To maintain

protection against resource and equipment failures techniques such as

redundancy are needed.