Re: [Teas] SFC and slicing

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian, Igor,

I was trying to think where this augmented (meaning: connectivity + service functions) model would be used.

The architecture that seems to be the most widely adopted is the one shown in picture below. I would say that the NSC is a functionality of the transport orchestrator (pass me the term transport), but that component in many cases, if not all, will only be capable to see connectivity and not service functions, which most likely will be managed by the cloud orchestrator…hence I see it hardly applicable to interface B.
At the same time I don’t think this model would be used over interface A, there I would see something more TMF like.

What’s your opinion? Where do you think model would fit? A? B? Both?

[cid:image003.png@01D75258.B64C4390]

BR
Daniele

From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Igor Bryskin
Sent: den 24 maj 2021 16:45
To: [e-mail]; Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] SFC and slicing

Right. I suppose we need to hear from operators. Specifically, focusing on the delay SLO I'd like to ask:
1. Is it possible that requested SFs in an SFC need to be time synchronized in a client specific way?
2. If e2e delays D, how the network is supposed to spend the delay budget between SFs in the requested SFC:
a) arbitrarily;
b) evenly.
c) in proportion specified by the client


Cheers,
Igor


On Monday, May 24, 2021, 08:49:31 AM EDT, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



It’s an interesting question : “What would happen if the different parts of the SFC needed different SLOs?”  But that is an “if”. I wonder whether we can decide whether this is likely.



Consider an end-to-end flow. We can easily decide on the end-to-end SLOs. For example, there may be an end-to-end latency requirement. But it seems unlikely that there is a special latency requirement between a pair of SFs. Is there an example, where the SF-to-SF SLO needs to be specific?



Thanks,

Adrian



From: Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 24 May 2021 13:22
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] SFC and slicing



Hi Adrian,

Thanks for giving to this some thoughts.

I see a problem with the suggested plan if it turns out along the road that in a requested by a client SFC SF1-> SF2->...->SFn different sets  of SLOs  are required for each/some SFi->SFj links, as well as e2e across the slice. I suggested one way to address this by describing slices as SF aware abstract topologies.

Cheers,

Igor

Get Outlook for Android<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=513a5706-0ea16fd4-513a179d-866132fe445e-e8d21cc567bd8f43&q=1&e=da75fd5d-9f07-47b6-96bf-3011c6879f6d&u=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fghei36>



________________________________

From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 1:40:11 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Teas] SFC and slicing



Hi,

Igor raised the question of "reconciling" the IETF work on service function
chaining and network slicing.

Some of the early discussions on network slicing considered not just
connectivity resources (buffers and bandwidth), but also other resources
that might be found in the network (like storage and compute). I was one of
the people suggesting this, and I know there were others. This would
certainly go some way to bridge the gap to SFC.

However, my understanding is that the design team (and others in the WG)
wanted to push ahead with the definitions for the connectivity resources
first, and consider adding other resources later.

I think this is wise. We have taken quite a long time to get to this point
(especially if you consider the early network slicing BoF), and it is
certainly the case that the first deployment drive is for connectivity
resources. Perhaps we should sort that out first.

That said, I don't think that adding other service descriptions would be
hard. It feels like the definition of further SLOs and SLEs.

If we want to continue this discussion, we should probably involve the SFC
working group to see how they feel about it. But anyone who is interested in
this could certainly begin work on specifying the SLOs and SLEs that they
will want to see added to the NBI.

Best,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas