Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00 Fri, 05 March 2021 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCF73A22CF for <>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 02:07:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.117
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3fhCmiqR0xDP for <>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 02:07:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E44653A22CB for <>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 02:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DsNhR6ljmz2xfg; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:07:35 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1614938855; bh=o869Q1SCLFK6VTw7hDz5+Wz/QhngFRmm2nigalMXEvE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=CxuBSCLIKJF1JZwoI4x33Q8j7cg0jfYaXOdp25OwhJQBv2PMZxA0jSmyArQezj/tf yKE5s0/KfH3R+SKw2vpcDXfLRvsjhZ2zUEFQXYKxcP3ht+L3ycVpuR9qpYCkAp2IZl 6dqg5AlZJqVZ7+j3lmtYaXQ2nn7rWTU/ChtuT9Rq6Ty6rPM5TRv1NU1gRIzIdHm4Wk wwFU9DM/eTH+R/8umpxsK2aOyeD9/OhE7EmZQy3VfbGyWwDlzB0GLeZXEvdqWubEOb OXdwwrq9j+HXenddyV4q8Ggd6QT8agheKN1i1jx1EULIb3EyIvoqLCreR8J6tQAgS+ hqkWAKrcyc9dg==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.82]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DsNhR5dRnz3wbr; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:07:35 +0100 (CET)
From: <>
To: Shunsuke Homma <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
Thread-Index: AQHXERm73wYI7YDfzU2zzAi+FZIneKp1HOsQ
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 10:07:35 +0000
Message-ID: <9646_1614938855_604202E7_9646_42_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F91E8@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <5592_1614855931_6040BEFB_5592_11_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F56BF@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F91E8OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 10:07:41 -0000

Hi Shunsuke,

Please see inline.


De : Shunsuke Homma []
Envoyé : jeudi 4 mars 2021 18:13
À : Joel Halpern Direct <>
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <>om>;
Objet : Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Thanks Med and Joel.

I agree that CE can be an endpoint of IETF Network Slice in managed CE case, and in other cases, IETF Network Slice is PE to PE.

And this is a reason why I'm hesitating to use the term CE/PE as the endpoint of IETF Network Slice. If endpoints may vary depending on underlay implementation (e.g., whether CE is managed or not), a logical identifier independent of underlay would be needed to simplify network slice model. (In my understanding, it was NSE.)

[Med] CE/PE terms are independent of the underlay. They simply delimit the scope of what is visible to a slice customer vs. the internal view of the slice provider.

Also, I understand the concept of "IETF Network Slice Service",  but I have some questions. In case that CE is not managed, can we call the connection between CEs which includes uncontrollable section IETF Network Slice Service?

[Med] It is still a service because it is where the service is delivered. For unmanaged CEs, the ** Guarantee Scope ** does not include the CE itself but may include the maintenance of attachment circuit if a physical link, for example, is also provided and maintained by the slice provider. It may also include the activation of specific protocols over that circuit by the slice provider. These considerations (activation means, service assurance) should be covered in the slice agreement.

One more, in the wholesale model, a slice broker may create an E2E network slice by combining slices provided from several network providers. In such a case, from a broker, where are endpoints in each network provider's domain?

[Med] The slice service will be delimited by the peer PEs (that will behave as CEs in the proposed model), while the slice itself is delimited by local PEs.




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.