Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Wed, 11 August 2021 23:41 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 C7A683A29A0 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4Vw5tRCjbG96 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC5603A299E for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id a8so6229395pjk.4 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2ACrK6ONvjFkkr1Eoqs0q2usREu/vg20u8FTErzEDxw=; b=CyKvBcHMt3stNqKcRdGJjr3dXqUQNHpS1m8h0XyhSclf4S8VRbsxBPk9kWRwD/v0MA oSR8rvOFS4aUys35ygLVXrlkluHbApA2B4SMgXmShy2rUS8+hzkmvPS15APlc69xNchL t2YTjLgQCFhDh7Ro31ANWPz9gAW/7Xh4vtX6+jQVoFRVbM2M+O6YIvlqQQ2GGKnlzgbf esQfCsFnX/TaHSrzXMblgzOpVNZ5VfveJrVrDv614L49ua/MvjryRgpJ6wsP1IVCKr1z 6kCxigXQ4MDMA+557+NsdNprlZF9zW0+o3Wg9VJfS9dUkqtKzIrYsKYFpc/a2zy7q3w0 PMVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2ACrK6ONvjFkkr1Eoqs0q2usREu/vg20u8FTErzEDxw=; b=YJnt8BRPrJv5U4YQk/ER7+td1rfvWWKx/K7idQZ1dReyHRQsjznPCXNCuXHyh/G8JU mTZEY7nNXzFuXm2v3fIJ8s+57Hi4AaOUb73k0w1wz4BXpUKEt5X7p2ZBJxIZUK1zg5Y5 zT1wWBI5FxtcT+XgF0BGnD4jtGJibfcMCHd7adkak/RBkDGnhUOEVod9FA/sJ5SlqlAf n/HSvCoEsDMcHEkwzMVoRVXncgTSxEDZg8cv6ovscFhWpIE/BX7I1Ciq/gsJVqo4PCJt Mz5Rhlk90zqzJ5ko37R4CNdx3bh5dYNtWUCqAmCykGwxSghOr2QtiAfavkddsT7ocJt4 7iwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530KOCV9P5tjYVXs80CJIrzW4aoc9FpX4nmJw5jbJtq1oMMDNE8r aHp7KW1jpJD2INeDzR6IO7tn7wMtqLXQ7DSCuko=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPuZZfUW4KVqiMR0jItj8oqrgCgglgwG7i1mqByuBDT1kA3fJf1ZGcpLUt0rW58pPPqJuIVXVlxDtxoJryfyA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2802:: with SMTP id e2mr3436701pjd.215.1628725284456; Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00e401d78ee8$5ea55790$1bf006b0$@olddog.co.uk> <202108120544338838854@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202108120544338838854@zte.com.cn>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 19:41:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV0W1SgUo3N30DySiUUeUB=CZkpGebTdCbmbOB_4uTrdmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org, jie.dong@huawei.com, kiran.ietf@gmail.com, lizhenbin@huawei.com, teas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="0000000000000472e505c951289e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/49ASSRv4dEcAw2RMzjAtv40SDwQ>
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization
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, 11 Aug 2021 23:41:33 -0000
+1 On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 5:44 PM <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com> wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > I think you've done a brilliant analysis making it all so clear. I fully > agree with it and also had a minor discomfort with "partition". I like > "group" or "grouping", but will be merry with any other. > > > Regards, > > Greg Mirsky > > > Sr. Standardization Expert > 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D > Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division > > > > E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com > www.zte.com.cn > Original Mail > *Sender: *AdrianFarrel > *To: *'Kiran Makhijani';'John E Drake';'Dongjie (Jimmy)';'Lizhenbin'; > teas@ietf.org; > *Date: *2021/08/11 12:38 > *Subject: **Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice > realization* > I wonder whether we can pick this apart and put it back together in a way > that makes sense. > > The customer's view of all this is an "IETF network slice service". I think > (hope) we are all agreed on this. The customer may ask (in shorthand) for a > "network slice", but: > - they are talking about IETF technology, so they asking for an "IETF > network slice" > - they actually want behavioural characteristics and have no right to tell > the operator > how to manage the network, so they are asking for an "IETF network slice > service." > > The operator has a bigger set of things to worry about. > > 1. At the top of the operator's view is the "IETF network slice service" as > > requested by the customer. We have this defined already, so nothing more > to say. > > 2. The operator maps the request for a slice service into the "IETF network > slice" which is the expression of the service in terms of network > connectivity > in the context of the operator's network. The relationship here is like > the > relationship between the L3SM and L3NM. > > 3. At the bottom of their view is an underlying network. The technology of > this > network depends, of course, on the operator's offering, but this is the > network > technology being sliced. It may be an IP network, and MPLS network, an > OTN, > or whatever. I would call this the "Underlay Network." This network may, > in > turn, be built upon an underlay network of the same or a different > technology, > and it may be facilitated through network slicing - but this need not > concern > us here. > > 4. That leaves the glue in the middle: the bit that enables the scaling and > maps > the network slice to the network. And I think it is this bit that is > causing the > most debate about terminology. There are some points to consider: > > a. The term "network resources" applies to the bandwidth, queues, > buffers, > etc. available on the links and nodes in the network. That may be > extended to refer to whole links and nodes. > > > b. The number of IETF network slice services is potentially large and the > operator needs a mechanism to scale the mapping of services to > network resources. > > c. The IETF network slices may be grouped for identical treatment to > > achieve scaling, where the grouping collects IETF network slices with > similar SLAs. > > d. It may be that different traffic flows within a single IETF network > slice > have different characteristics. In this case, it may be beneficial > to group > together some of the traffic flows from different slices. > > e. The grouped slices/flows are enabled in the network using network > resources assigned for that purpose. The assignment may be anything > from a fully-fledged virtual network (such as in ACTN or VPN+), > through > network reserved resources (such as in MPLS-TE), and centrally > accounted resources (such as SDN or possible SR), to statistically > shared resources. > > There seems to be various points for and against 4d. But, it would appear > that this is an implementation or deployment issue that doesn't change what > > the protocols need to do. So we should probably allow it architecturally, or > at least, not disallow it. > > > Of course, as Kiran points out, 4c/d/e may be a pass-through. That is, it is > not necessary to implement such groupings either because there are only a > few slices (which has been the view of some operators) or because the > network systems can handle the number of slices. And it is in the nature of > > architectures of this sort that all functions can be nulled out without loss > of generality, and we have to recall that the internals of provisioning > systems may appear as functional blocks in our architectures, but we don't > compel implementations to adhere to that type of architecture. So I don't > think we have to worry on that account. > > And that brings the question of how we name the resources that are gathered > in 4e. > > I can't decide whether it is helpful to spend time saying why I don't like > each of the proposed terms. I certainly have things I don't like about (for > > example) "slice aggregate" (because of 4d, which means it is really a "slice > sub-flow aggregate"), and I am not a fan of "VTN" (because of "transport" > and maybe it is not really a network). But maybe it is better for me to say > what I think we should call things? I think we have... > > - IETF network slice service (customer view) > - IETF network slice (operator view) > - Resource partition (delivery mechanism) > - Underlay network (network used to support the slice) > > Why "resource partition"? Well it is a collection of "nodes, links, and > network resources that are marked within the network for use by a set of > network slice traffic flows". > It is possible that the word "partition" is too strong because it may imply > to some people that resources in a partition cannot be shared, but I don't > feel that. > Softer words than "partition" would be "group", "bundle", "pool", and I > could live with any of them. > > Best, > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kiran Makhijani > Sent: 11 August 2021 16:00 > To: John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Dongjie (Jimmy) > <jie.dong@huawei.com>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>; teas@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice > realization > > Hi John, (and all), > > Two very basic clarification questions: > 1. How do we differentiate between the slice-segments that are > resource-aware vs those that are not? I had assumed that since a slice > has an SLO, it will need network resource allocations in some form. > > 2. Is it ok to assume that the customer view of slice is an 'IETF > network slice service' and the 'IETF slice realization' of that service > in a provider network is raises the question of underlay and overlay > constructs. Am I right? > (a) if so, then we are acknowledging the presence of another layer of > abstraction (for realization). It could be underlay/overlay or > aggregate/??. Then the term 'slice aggregate' is better and my > preference, it is easier to see that different slice-services are > aggregated into a single construct in a provider network. Use of > underlay/overlay are confusing. > (b) for a leaner provisioning, I would also prefer to see it documented > that the aggregate is optional and it should be possible to directly map > a slice-service to physical or real resources in the network. > specifically useful when a single domain is carving out slices for > different purposes. > > Thanks > Kiran > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "John E Drake" <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> > To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>; "Lizhenbin" > <lizhenbin@huawei.com>; "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org> > Sent: 8/11/2021 5:38:05 AM > Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice > realization > > >Jimmy, > > > >Snipped, comments inline. > > > >Yours Irrespectively, > > > >John > > > > > >Juniper Business Use Only > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:03 PM > >> To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com > >; > >>teas@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: New term for the underlay construct used for slice > realization > >> > >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] > >> > >underlay construct for network slice realization bound to > >> > > network slice services? That is, is the underlay construct only for > >> > > use in network slicing, or should it be generalized for more > possible uses? > >> > > >> > [JD] Absolutely yes > >> > >> [Jie] I guess you mean "Yes" to the latter case, which is "it should be > generalized > >> for more possible uses", is my understanding correct? > > > >[JD] Yes to the latter > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > 2. If the answer to question 1 is YES, should it reflect the > following > >> > > characteristics? > >> > > > >> > > a. It is about the underlay > >> > > b. It is about the partitioned resources used to deliver the > network slice > >> > > services > >> > > c. It allows the 1:1, N:1, and 1:N mapping models between the > network > >> > slice > >> > > services and the underlay construct. The 1:1 and N:1 mapping may be > >> > > straightforward. Does it also make sense to divide the elements or > >> > > traffic flows in a single network slice service to carry them in > >> > > different > >> > underlay constructs? > >> > > >> > [JD] Yes to all of the above. Please see: > >> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf > >> > t-drake-bess-enhanced-vpn-06__;!!NEt6yMaO- > >> gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFoujxVlZ4r9 > >> > F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-ROxL4C2_xNaR2ImI4$ > >> > > > >> > > Lastly, here are some candidates of the "new term": > >> > > > >> > > Option 1: The network slice service is called "overlay slice", then > >> > > the underlay construct is called "underlay slice". > >> > > > >> > > Option 2: The network slice service is called "service slice", then > >> > > the underlay construct is called "resource slice". > >> > > >> > [JD] I don't think we need another term for what we are already > > >> > calling an 'IETF Network Slice Service'. Adrian and I are considering > > >> > the term 'resource partition' to describe the partitioning of underlay > >> > network resources in support of various overlay services such as IETF > Network > >> Slice Services. > >> > This is congruent with the ideas expressed in: > >> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf > >> > t-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segmen__;!!NEt6yMaO- > >> gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFouj > >> > xVlZ4r9F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-ROxL4C2_xNxEfwaXg$ > >> > ts-03. What this allows one to build is an 'partitioned underlay > >> > network topology'. > >> > >> [Jie] Agree that here we are talking about the term for the underlay > construct. > >> "Resource partition" captures one of its key characteristics, while IMO > another > > >> thing the term needs to reflect is that the resource partition is needed > on a > >> subset of the links and nodes (rather than on a single node or link) in > the physical > >> network, which together builds a logical network topology. > > > >[JD] In my initial email, above, I was proposing 'partitioned underlay > network topology' > > > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Jie > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Your opinion about these candidates are much appreciated. You may > >> > > also propose other new term if it complies with the above two > points. > >> > > >> > [JD] I think you have exceeded your remit. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Best Regards, > >> > > Robin > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Teas mailing list > >> > > Teas@ietf.org > >> > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/te > >> > > as > >> > > __;!!N > >> > > Et6yMaO-gk!Q0ycOf0ELxT6mG1GbnO4LSL-Q99J4uu7jfdUtBECaI- > >> > > O08HqD31TGJciNjuxL2A$ > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Teas mailing list > >> > Teas@ietf.org > >> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > >> > __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFoujxVlZ4r9F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls- > >> ROxL4C2 > >> > _xNDCrPaNQ$ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Teas mailing list > >Teas@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
- [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used f… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… gregory.mirsky
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Kiran Makhijani
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… gregory.mirsky
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Kiran M
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Luis M. Contreras
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Kiran M
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… 龚立艳
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct us… Vishnu Pavan Beeram