Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

[[e-mail]]

Hi John, all, 

I strongly support this proposal. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de John E Drake
> Envoyé : mardi 23 février 2021 15:53
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <[e-mail]>; Joel M.
> Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
> network-slice-definition-00
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Eric and I have reviewed the Definitions draft, the email thread with
> the subject line: Network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
> network-slice-definition-00, and the RFCs referenced in emails on
> that thread - 3985, 4110, 4026, 4664, and 8309, and we would like to
> propose that in the Definitions draft we replace 'network slice
> endpoint' with 'CE' and 'network slice realization endpoint' with
> 'PE', that we reference  RFCs  3985, 4110, 4026, 4664, and 8309, and
> that we  replace the current figure in Endpoint section with several
> figures, which show connectivity constructs and which are consistent
> with these RFCs.  We would also like to replace 'consumer' with
> 'customer', add 'attachment circuit', and add a new term, viz, 'IETF
> Network Slice Service', whose definition is a set of CEs, a set of
> connectivity constructs (MP2MP, P2MP, P2P, etc.) between subsets of
> these CEs and an SLO for each CE sending to each connectivity
> construct.
> 
> As an aside, the Endpoint section of the Definitions draft uses the
> bulk of its prose enumerating what its endpoints are not.  Per Yakov,
> since there are a potentially infinite number of things which its
> endpoints are not, this is futile and we would like to remove that
> prose.
> 
> Yours Irrespectively,
> 
> Eric and John
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> > [e-mail]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:59 AM
> > To: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
> > draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-
> > definition-00
> >
> > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> >
> >
> > Re-,
> >
> > Indeed. That's need to be fixed.
> >
> > As we are on the terminology, I do also suggest that the draft is
> > updated to adhere to RFC8309. Given the recursiveness discussed in
> the
> > draft, having geo- coordinates interfaces is also confusing.
> Inspiring
> > from RFC8309 would make more sense.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : mardi
> 16
> > > février 2021 17:44 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> > > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Objet : Re: [Teas]
> > > network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
> > > network-slice-definition-00
> > >
> > > I would be happy to use CE and PE.  I would also be happy to use
> > > completely different words.  The current diagram and terminology
> > > makes this very confusing, and leads to problems.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Joel
> > >
> > > On 2/16/2021 11:39 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > Re-,
> > > >
> > > > Please see inline.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Med
> > > >
> > > >> -----Message d'origine-----
> > > >> De : Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Joel M.
> > > >> Halpern
> > > >> Envoyé : mardi 16 février 2021 17:12 À : [e-mail] Objet :
> Re:
> > > >> [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
> > > >> network-slice-definition-00
> > > >>
> > > >> The document is not about the request from the external
> customer
> > > (the
> > > >> request for the end-to-end network slice). It is about the
> > > >> request from other orchestration systems to the IETF Network
> > > >> Slice
> > > management
> > > >> systems.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] ... which is still behaving as the customer role.
> > > >
> > > >   Yes, those systems need to know where they intent to
> > > >> utilize the IETF network slice.  But the IETF network slice
> does
> > > not
> > > >> need to know about that.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] This is what I fail to see. The orchestrator has an
> internal
> > > vision that is not available to the entity asking for a slice.
> These
> > > nodes are not even known to the "other orchestration systems"
> when
> > > asking for a slice.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> In particular, when we get to talking about configuring the
> IETF
> > > >> Network Slice properties, the edge (ingress) that the IETF
> > > >> Network Slice controller controls (and corresponding egress)
> is
> > > >> what needs
> > > to
> > > >> be provisioned.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] Agree, but that is a distinct phase.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, ingress/egress are as a function of the traffic direction.
> A
> > > node (PE) may behave as both ingress and egress for the same
> slice.
> > > >
> > > >> It is possible that on the egress side there needs to be
> > > information
> > > >> about how to deliver the traffic externally.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] Agree. That node does not need to be visible (known in
> > > advance) to the entity that will consume the corresponding slice.
> > > >
> > > >    But that would not be
> > > >> in terms of end-points since from the perspective of the IETF
> > > Network
> > > >> Slice, on the egress that is not an endpoint of anything.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] I agree that "endpoint" is confusing. "Customer
> Node/Edge"
> > > > vs
> > > "Provider Edge" are my favorite here.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Yours,
> > > >> Joel
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2/16/2021 11:05 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > >>> Hi Joel,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I disagree with this note. I do think that both flavors of
> > > >> "endpoint" should be included in the draft.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> >From the customer standpoint, a slice request cannot be
> > > >> characterized by elements not visible to the customer. The
> scope
> > > of a
> > > >> requested slice can only be characterized between nodes that
> are
> > > >> known to the requestor. This is usually called, CE.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The mapping between a CE and a network device (typically, a
> PE)
> > > is
> > > >> a process that is internal to the slice provider.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The CE-PE link cannot be systematically excluded as some
> > > >>> specific
> > > >> behaviors may need to be enforced in the CE-PE link. Think
> about
> > > >> a slice that is implemented by means of a PE-based VPN and
> which
> > > >> requires some specific routing + QoS policies at the CE-PE
> link.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>> Med
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > ____
> > > _
> > > > ___________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
> informations
> > > > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre
> > > diffuses,
> > > > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
> > > > message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le
> > > > detruire
> > > ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant
> > > susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si
> ce
> > > message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> > > >
> > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> > > > privileged information that may be protected by law; they
> should
> > > not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the
> sender
> > > and delete this message and its attachments.
> > > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages
> that
> > > have been modified, changed or falsified.
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > ________________________________________________________
> >
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre
> diffuses,
> > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
> > par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire
> ainsi
> > que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant
> susceptibles
> > d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a
> ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> > privileged information that may be protected by law; they should
> not
> > be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
> and
> > delete this message and its attachments.
> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
> have
> > been modified, changed or falsified.
> > Thank you.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tea
> s
> > __;!!N
> > Et6yMaO-gk!TrdpM67-tg4psF0dnG7jBV9LisKHxO_oCNxmQXrJhY-
> > B6MFchY8gBvvb8CNl408$
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.