Re: [Teas] Various terms for transport portion of a network slicing

"Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com> Tue, 29 September 2020 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923D63A10F0; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 735KJJ5wg2OA; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam12on2098.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.243.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB6CF3A10ED; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=V9Y07iPrgGoo+pRaNkSCLj2EuszlLTdLNQoQi19pP6+dHVIvj1oSUJhU9xPAoV+FmZCFtvepg0PA1PLTEl1T6plHkD9ZycK7oGuzDqewBPoSf6m+gcCq3/1EOqO8KdrSx9pbEKZdeqoUNInjj5uzhKTthBNe+pXSf95OtrDIqiZZ/pLmSs8Ll1JXG7XJOG9ln/Qcohq7nHs62LL4ihwfl2xBInX/sHo8O9Xt1SdvcMs0e8ntzFYjmpQqJbcU1Nd2WiQfPAnzmlzn8TXMh2enlXV6LGv+ed/FCUyWHpY5NOY3kveuAUPtZwgWR9Nvggc/LKETXA6Y1qPVCE7iyRBVhw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=VBnoMBtIj2JTW6AN0rLgl6/fa9mKbcyZ7z+0eu7xWXM=; b=TxqWFEicXU2QGjufQj4xguo1wLeQwzBMbvbvXXeGB7lVW8nnkePmfjVQCatcncGtcFTsyZRDXQQG08CwZZUdfP8ttweQXf1NVkuGeztaH2miTmzLrb5c1roovre6RxNngMRAPSOt6429S2as0ROJde5x7dfDdHE3mX8940RZbOUD5VIz4LTRs/+D45mnd4NUJ5t0wHc+QWFpkkBIlodh10S0oSWury7UeJcBfTzQ8IyyLd8mrpIO6hyTUO2qe5BlLteK5dB1W/hxPSK1furhmY/Ysm/9CXQwHNJ2COwiF+Ijvjrd6EhAC7nrgOMiFg240hrklPBdFJNRRkbdgvavjw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nokia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nokia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nokia.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=VBnoMBtIj2JTW6AN0rLgl6/fa9mKbcyZ7z+0eu7xWXM=; b=u+QKmHa/tEjgskZPbVrNmDoRYc6LdmpZsVtpEFugL+HlAWQtNQMST3u/Ry6MQnbjw3owhY/DpgmnSWH6qcgfYPWD50LGLecDa0U3ZeqjW1mfgFzvY+QhE/aCFtXTQRajXJ9zApMDQ2WQGE2omG0TLRLkpcS0pPe8UhTZmX4ozzU=
Received: from DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:1ee::8) by DM6PR08MB4121.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:83::21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.22; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:27:50 +0000
Received: from DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8d69:2e65:578c:54af]) by DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8d69:2e65:578c:54af%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3412.029; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:27:50 +0000
From: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
To: Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>
CC: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>, "teas-ns-dt@ietf.org" <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Various terms for transport portion of a network slicing
Thread-Index: AQHWlpaeuWQeDdOwwkCTL2WEqtEO3Q==
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:27:50 +0000
Message-ID: <51179B7E-C2CE-4794-A74B-38068E36CB25@nokia.com>
References: <3C917BB8-A27B-48E8-8AB5-4674B9892E60@nokia.com> <A19434CC-A9E0-47E6-A6E5-36DA8EDCEC89@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A19434CC-A9E0-47E6-A6E5-36DA8EDCEC89@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.41.20091302
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [24.246.4.36]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 425d5f4e-c28a-4139-2b9b-08d864adc0f3
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR08MB4121:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR08MB4121AD5984DDDC9A2BEA06BF9F320@DM6PR08MB4121.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: S2nM/Q4pX311xGWmKep6RPHWwq59xZgdM1UyR1KAwAkr7xXh5m4fIeQS7uCC2WsNay7X8lHtK1Z4z0zpaxEeqLAczgwnntir3nSDAHfzjNSUHtB25LlOFb8fjq10S6V6Od2aNYzySEe2aBHflX2Wz4cTNdyiqMjPj9TaThmfeb9wWjZn1EJlMdUtNVUGp2V60917jn4Zi4UI+9JaLXOjIj2Tnx93eS9wxCsaWEmPrg67lIl70TEbsX8qsCfD3N/NXLQOyMQdlSVcS2Sd+IV6ZmGPGXIfNiD+W0YEiq9FyFIBMcfRLVQ2HHw09QnUXHCJeca8D+6eNttpQtd0YPPayl8iHYALwJ03Xv1ECs2JzJSbT7W9XxaKsDvmgpR2ecao08LZPUTlDTHF979Lld9+EDbD62y1OcVu0Hu1hOqW6odcbk/ZIuew0h4G5jk+x1mo
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(136003)(346002)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(33656002)(2616005)(186003)(316002)(8936002)(6506007)(478600001)(53546011)(76116006)(66946007)(6486002)(5660300002)(91956017)(26005)(6916009)(966005)(6512007)(4326008)(54906003)(8676002)(2906002)(71200400001)(86362001)(83380400001)(66446008)(64756008)(66476007)(66556008)(36756003)(166002)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51179B7EC2CE4794A74B38068E36CB25nokiacom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 425d5f4e-c28a-4139-2b9b-08d864adc0f3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 Sep 2020 19:27:50.1022 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: swW6JBan5t+6EzJFL1oG3p14prJEVocXKQG/AZYyWs2rXUeiBWWCqv+/7nrLXuc2BUok2j1pJGWCXsLNZnWaQA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR08MB4121
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/2doFtz_8MvUYJamDnnAdMXTsPhQ>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Various terms for transport portion of a network slicing
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:27:56 -0000

Eric and all,

Yes. The term “IETF Network Slice” is acceptable to co-authors.

Reza



From: Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 3:10 PM
To: Reza Rokui <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>et>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>rg>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>om>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>om>, "teas-ns-dt@ietf.org" <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Various terms for transport portion of a network slicing

Reza,

Not exactly sure what your mail is concluding.

Is a “golden middle” the same as an acceptable compromise?  If so, it sounds like we’re saying that we find this term acceptable.

That would be a good thing.

—
Eric



On Sep 29, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com<mailto:reza.rokui@nokia.com>> wrote:

Hi Lou, Pavan, Deborah and all,

As per TEAS WG chairs request during the last week’s meeting on network slicing, the co-authors of the definition draft had a few meeting and compiled all the potential terms with their pros and cons in the following table.
We feel that we captured all the terms suggested by TEAS and NSDT members in mailing lists and during the various meetings. Please let us know if any terms is missing.

In summary, the co-authors of the draft believe the term “IETF Network Slice” is a golden middle where IETF provides the exact context of any Network slice.

Cheers,
Reza (on behalf of all co-authors)



Various options for transport connectivity term from IETF point of view (without any specific order)

Term
Suggested by
Pros
Cons
1
IETF Network Slice
TEAS chairs
o It clearly elaborates the scope of technologies addressed with in the IETF leveraging the industry-wide term 'network slice.
o It is golden middle, where “IETF” provides the exact context to “Network Slice”
o Acceptable to TEAS WG chairs
o Acceptable to draft co-authors
labeling a piece of work with SDO name is not a good idea and IETF has always worked towards wider use, generic solutions, so the name may be restrictive.
2
Transport Slice
Draft Authors and NSDT
o ‘Transport network’ is an abstraction of connectivity between the (network) end-points which is technology agnostic.  Well covered by RFC5921.

o Aligned with other SDO (i.e. MEF)
See Figure 17 of following white paper
https://wiki.mef.net/display/CESG/Slicing+for+Shared+5G+Fronthaul+and+Backhaul+-+White+Paper
As per recent WG adoption poll, it is not accepted
3
Transport network slice
Draft Authors and some IETF members
‘Transport network’ is an abstraction of connectivity between the (network)end-points which is technology agnostic.  Well covered by RFC5921.
As per recent WG adoption poll, it is not accepted
4
Connectivity Slice
Draft Authors
o Since the transport slice is a set of distinct connections, term "Connectivity Slice" is selected

o Aligned with other SDO (i.e. 3GPP)
See Figure 4.9.3.1 of TR 28.801 and  http://www.3gpp.org/NEWS-EVENTS/3GPP-NEWS/1951-SA5_5G
As per TEAS WG chair, connectivity has different meaning at IETF
5
Connectivity Network Slice
Luis
The term Network becomes now narrow downed to the reference to connectivity, which is subject of IETF
As per TEAS WG chair, connectivity has different meaning at IETF
6
Connection Slice
Luis
o The term associates the concept of slice to the connection enabling the data transmission among end-points participating of a communication
o Note – here we could then follow a similar approach to how the VPNs are classified as L2 or L3; I mean L3/L2/(L1?) Connection Slice; if we classify the Connection Slices in that manner, such classification of the Connection Slice types will also help to describe recursiveness or hierarchical (multi-layer) slicing
o A connection can be established at different levels, including protocols above Layer 3
o Connection slice can make the people understand that there is a single connection represent a slice (i.e., 1:1) while actually could not be the case (i.e., 1 slice being formed by N connections)
7
Slice Network
Stewart
Stewart is coming with some background that a slice is combination of storage, compute and communications (or network). Slice network means an existing network is sliced to serve a particular user-case.
According to Lou, it has entirely different meaning.
8
Virtual Slice Network (VSN)
Luis
o Variant on top of Stewart’s suggestion to link with the evolution of the concept of legacy VPNs
o The term reminds the idea of logical network per customer focusing on connectivity
o As before, it could be possible to follow a similar approach to how the VPNs are classified as L2 or L3; I mean L3/L2/(L1?) VSN; also here, such classification of the VSNs can also help to describe recursiveness or hierarchical (multi-layer) slicing in transport
o There is no specific reference to transport or connectivity, apart of the generic idea of network (which we now is also an overloaded term)
o Differently from a VPN, which basically is a single instance including a number of locations, a VSN could refer to a set of individual VSNs (e.g., one per network segment). So can be probably confusing. Thus probably it would be needed to add additional terms such as sub-VSN, or VSN-segment, VSN-part, VSN-sub-slice, or alike
9
TE Network slice
Some TEAS members
Aligns with same  rationale used for naming ACTN.
Since not all transport networks are TE enabled, the realization of connectivity might be in a non-TE network. So, this term seems not appropriate
10
Carrier network slice
Webex/Stewart
In a generic use of term 'carrier' a carrier slice network carries use-case specific network traffic.
it may be confusing because it is associated with the infrastructure of telecommunication service providers, i.e., FNO/MNO. Recently, some network operators  deploy COTS servers in their infrastructure for MEC usages, and some readers may expect control of compute and storage  resources is in scope
11
Network slice
Some IETF members
An adoption of industry-wide term. While each SDO may look at it differently based on its own set of capabilities, for an end user it is a network slice in a specific technology domain.
o Since multiple connections are part of a single "Network Slice", it is not a good idea to call each of these connections "Network slice".
o There is a lack of 'harmonized' definition of network slice. For end customers, message may be confusing on which SDO they should ask for what part. It may lead to duplication of orchestration or APIs, depending upon who is controlling end to end network slice  - is it 3GPP operator, MVNO, ISP, service-integrator, OTT etc...
12
Data transmission network slice (DTNS)
Shunsuke
Since the transport slice is a set of distinct connections, providing the data transmission, this term might be suitable.

13
Transmission Network  Slice
Reza
Since the transport slice provides the data transmission across transport network, this term might be suitable.

14
Transmission Slice
Reza
Same as "Transmission Network Slice"




_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas