Re: [Teas] consideration of 1 VPN to N VNs mapping

"Ogaki, Kenichi" <ke-oogaki@kddi.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ke-oogaki@kddi.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 9F4843A0D97; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 khVtl6M6No0L; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kddi.com (athena3.kddi.com [27.90.165.196]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783D63A0D95; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LTMC2122.kddi.com (post-send [10.206.2.120]) by kddi.com (KDDI Mail) with ESMTP id 3387AE010C; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:08:44 +0900 (JST)
Received: from LTMC2144.kddi.com ([10.206.0.236] [10.206.0.236]) by LTMC2122.kddi.com with ESMTP; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:08:44 +0900
Received: from LTMC2144.kddi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.kddi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0899F4C005E; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:08:44 +0900 (JST)
Received: from LTMC2152.kddi.com (post-incheck [10.206.0.239]) by LTMC2144.kddi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16DA4C005C; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:08:43 +0900 (JST)
Received: from LTMC2152.kddi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by LTMC2152.kddi.com with ESMTP id 07518hQ0021167; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:08:43 +0900
Received: from LTMC2152.kddi.com.mid_103778285 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by LTMC2152.kddi.com with ESMTP id 0750wgsl006798; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:58:42 +0900
X-SA-MID: 103778285
Received: from KDDI1801PC1319 ([10.211.4.86] [10.211.4.86]) by post-smtp2.kddi.com with ESMTPA; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:58:42 +0900
From: "Ogaki, Kenichi" <ke-oogaki@kddi.com>
To: "'Dhruv Dhody'" <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: =?iso-2022-jp?B?JxskQjVcOmQbKEIgGyRCQnNMaRsoQic=?= <ta-miyasaka@kddi.com>, =?iso-2022-jp?B?JxskQkMwMSkbKEIgGyRCRCs/LhsoQic=?= <to-niwa@kddi.com>, <draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org>, "'TEAS WG'" <teas@ietf.org>
References: <003601d66a44$944a3560$bcdea020$@kddi.com> <CAB75xn5u4s8oypHH0px_JVhu4HeYCos5YdUS9eQ750cg4aYdYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn5u4s8oypHH0px_JVhu4HeYCos5YdUS9eQ750cg4aYdYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:58:42 +0900
Message-ID: <000401d66ac3$90263b80$b072b280$@kddi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQLrTqqs9sN2nyjQ+IlPZj1F7qTEtgFrnPmhpvOL4VA=
Content-Language: ja
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/40jqSuSGQ8kbO9aqrTOLwUAPPyc>
Subject: Re: [Teas] consideration of 1 VPN to N VNs mapping
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:08:48 -0000

Hi Dhruv,

Thanks for the prompt reply.

>There is an 'end-to-end leaf' that says bandwidth reservation needs to be done in MPLS network but I did not interpret that it requires maintaining a separate VN, the consolidated requirements from all classes can be mapped to a single VN and the QoS is applied at the edges as per the L3SM YANG.

As you saw in section 6.12.3.2, the properties of custom qos-profile include latency, and we honestly want the per-flow, classification rule, based VN mapping mechanism.

>Anyways, let me get this verified from L3SM experts and come back to you.

Your colleague and one of co-editors of both te-service-mapping and RFC8299, Qin Wu, is familiar with this discussion like this:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/i5srx8YpD9296bu3VuIkHgAEi3g/
Q.12 from David Ball

Thanks,
Kenichi

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 7:54 PM
To: Ogaki, Kenichi <ke-oogaki@kddi.com>
Cc: 宮坂 拓也 <ta-miyasaka@kddi.com>om>; 丹羽 朝信 <to-niwa@kddi.com>om>; draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org; TEAS WG (teas@ietf.org) <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] consideration of 1 VPN to N VNs mapping

Hi Kenichi,

I have not looked into it in detail but my understanding of the classes in the custom qos-profile is that they are about the access CE-PE link and thus would not lead to the creation of a separate VN per class.

Even in the example
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8299#section-6.12.3.2 it says how the
100 Mbps on the access link is shared between the 3 classes.

There is an 'end-to-end leaf' that says bandwidth reservation needs to be done in MPLS network but I did not interpret that it requires maintaining a separate VN, the consolidated requirements from all classes can be mapped to a single VN and the QoS is applied at the edges as per the L3SM YANG.

Anyways, let me get this verified from L3SM experts and come back to you.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:29 PM Ogaki, Kenichi <ke-oogaki@kddi.com> wrote:
>
> Hi draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang authors,
>
> Could you consider 1 to N mapping for the L3VPN to VN mapping?
>
> As we required some changes to actn-vn-yang before/during 108th meeting, we would like to also discuss an additional requirement to te-service-mapping-yang. Sorry, late for 108th meeting.
>
> If we correctly understand the current definition, only one VN is allowed to be mapped to a VPN as described in section 4.1 and the model in section 6.1.1.
> However, L3SM expects to differentiate traffic handling per qos-profile which corresponds to key network performance constraints including bandwidth and latency, etc. as described in section 6.12.3.2 of RFC8299.
> As an operator, we believe this means that a qos-profile should be mapped to a VN like this:
>
>    module: ietf-l3sm-te-service-mapping
>      augment /l3vpn-svc:l3vpn-svc/l3vpn-svc:vpn-services
>                /l3vpn-svc:vpn-service:
>        +--rw te-service-mapping!
>           +--rw te-mapping
>              +--rw mapping* [mapping-id]
>                 +--rw mapping-id
>                 +--rw target-class-id?        -> /l3vpn-svc:l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles
>                 |                                  /valid-provider-identifiers/qos-profile-identifier
>                 |                                  /id
>                 +--rw map-type?               identityref
>                 +--rw availability-type?      identityref
>                 +--rw (te)?
>                    +--:(vn)
>                    |  +--rw vn-ref?           -> /vn:vn/vn-list/vn-id
>                    +--:(te-topo)
>                    |  +--rw vn-topology-id?   te-types:te-topology-id
>                    |  +--rw abstract-node?
>                    |          -> /nw:networks/network/node/node-id
>                    +--:(te-tunnel)
>                       +--rw te-tunnel-list*   te:tunnel-ref
>
>
> Also, in L3SM, qos-profile can be locally defined under site-network-access and also mapped to classification rules defined there as described in 6.12.3.2/6.12.3.1. Then, te-service-mapping-yang should also map a VNAP to the local qos-profile even without vpn-service level mapping like this:
>
>      augment /l3vpn-svc:l3vpn-svc/l3vpn-svc:sites/l3vpn-svc:site
>                /l3vpn-svc:site-network-accesses/l3vpn-svc:site-network-access
>                /l3vpn-svc:service/l3vpn-svc:qos/l3vpn-svc:qos-profile
>                /l3vpn-svc:profile:
>        +--rw (te)?
>           +--:(vn)
>              +--rw vn-ap-ref?
>                      -> /vn:ap/access-point-list/vn-ap/vn-ap-id
>
>      augment /l3vpn-svc:l3vpn-svc/l3vpn-svc:sites/l3vpn-svc:site
>                /l3vpn-svc:site-network-accesses/l3vpn-svc:site-network-access
>                /l3vpn-svc:service/l3vpn-svc:qos/l3vpn-svc:qos-profile/l3vpn-svc:classes
>                /l3vpn-svc:class:
>        +--rw (te)?
>           +--:(vn)
>              +--rw vn-ap-ref?
>                      -> /vn:ap/access-point-list/vn-ap/vn-ap-id
>
> Although we may consider the same requirement to L2SM mapping, from our service objectives, the current definition is enough for now.
>
> How do you think?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Kenichi
>
> --
> Kenichi Ogaki
> KDDI Corp. | Operation Automation Promotion Dept.
> +81-(0)80-5945-9138 | www.kddi.com
>
>
>

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