Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 23 February 2021 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 803783A0D4A for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:19:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=joelhalpern.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 SlyqnZIq6bmb for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 ED7D53A0D4D for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DlS4Y4nDBz1nv8q; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:19:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1614104365; bh=gXLCbrGV24jb8CbJyM6sLM5ZW1eW4D1WxB9uidPzoYQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MNpTABFCnlfbEvHBHGlQXwjyWzB8x7YBCaxclHTfXJkv/LiJPKfDH4c1FxpRASJDV lsr0WHtYKEFLHm9OMUsdAPKuYYyg49AEELn3vrlSrLcy5gy3yPdSRGLHxuBzuzo2Qt LDf54JJn538qQR973f3ELenbQHwHoSzjX+1ZJsKk=
X-Quarantine-ID: <1uKssCFCMgHs>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DlS4W49XPz1nscY; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:19:23 -0800 (PST)
To: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
References: <cc3949a4-1e60-7f77-45bd-2470be67d9d5@joelhalpern.com> <28233_1613491513_602BED39_28233_126_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF830@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1bf03e82-3734-885a-7047-cacf5c63d9cc@joelhalpern.com> <8211_1613493543_602BF527_8211_334_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF95E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <cde51de3-4533-9acd-a654-59a1dc9f195b@joelhalpern.com> <11878_1613494720_602BF9C0_11878_194_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF9FC@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <MN2PR05MB6623B0D3F5EEECFB3CE3FA8BC7809@MN2PR05MB6623.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <71F75531-DE7E-419E-890D-A5AB6D5F4D8F@nokia.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <15a1c88a-9020-d992-44d2-719f2b996f34@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 13:19:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <71F75531-DE7E-419E-890D-A5AB6D5F4D8F@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4Ic47aXG9IlYVa1eDSgLDOdFFk4>
Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
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, 23 Feb 2021 18:19:29 -0000

A) I support John and Eric's proposal.
B) You say that you added more explanation in your individual YANG 
draft.  However,t he section you quote does not explain why one would 
want to (much less need to) create the confusion by naming two different 
kinds of things the same way.  Nor why the IETF Network Slice Controller 
would be responsible for provisioning the user of the IETF Network 
Slice.  In short, you did not explain.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/23/2021 11:53 AM, Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote:
> All,
> 
> In summary I am in agreement for some parts.
> 
> Please see a few comments inline.
> 
> Reza
> 
> On 2021-02-23, 9:52 AM, "Teas on behalf of John E Drake" 
> <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> 
> wrote:
> 
>      Hi,
> 
>      Eric and I have reviewed the Definitions draft, the email thread 
> with the subject line: Network Slice Endpoint in 
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00, and the RFCs 
> referenced in emails on that thread - 3985, 4110, 4026, 4664, and 8309, 
> and we would like to propose that in the Definitions draft we replace 
> 'network slice endpoint' with 'CE' and 'network slice realization 
> endpoint' with 'PE', that we reference  RFCs  3985, 4110, 4026, 4664, 
> and 8309,
> 
> [Reza] The IETF network slice endpoints (NSE) can  be mapped to some 
> virtual or physical interfaces on CE or PE depends on the use-case. But 
> the  “IETF network slice endpoints” are not CE or PE nodes themselves.
> 
> We have added more explanation to 
> _draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-02_ figure 4 and 5. This is 
> the summary.
> 
> “IETF network slice endpoints (NSE)” are logical entities which can be 
> mapped to interfaces on CE or PE nodes depends on use-case. The 
> following pictures show two use-cases where in one NSE are mapped to 
> interface on PE nodes and in other one NSE are mapped to interface on CE 
> nodes.
> 
> NSE1                                     NSE2
> 
>         (With PE1 parameters)                       (with PE2 parameters)
> 
>                 o<--------- IETF Network Slice 1 ------->o
> 
>                 +     |                            |     +
> 
>                 +     |<----------- S1 ----------->|     +
> 
>                 +     |                            |     +
> 
>                 +     |    |<------ T1 ------>|    |     +
> 
>                   +   v    v                  v    v   +
> 
>                     + +----+                  +----+ +
> 
>      +-----+    |     | PE1|==================| PE2|          +-----+
> 
>      |     |----------X    |                  |    |     |    |     |
> 
>      |     |    |     |    |                  |    X----------|     |
> 
>      |     |----------X    |                  |    |     |    |     |
> 
>      +-----+    |     |    |==================|    |     |    +-----+
> 
>                 AC    +----+                  +----+     AC
> 
>      Customer         Provider                Provider        Customer
> 
>      Edge 1           Edge 1                  Edge 2           Edge 2
> 
> NSE3                                     NSE4
> 
>         (With CE1 parameters)                       (with CE2 parameters)
> 
>                 o<--------- IETF Network Slice 2 ------->o
> 
>                 +     |                            |     +
> 
>                 +     |<----------- S2 ----------->|     +
> 
>                 +     |                            |     +
> 
>               +       |    |<------ T2 ------>|    |      +
> 
>             +         v    v                  v    v        +
> 
>           +     AC    +----+                  +----+          +
> 
>      +-----+    |     | PE1|==================| PE2|          +-----+
> 
>      |     |----------X    |                  |    |     |    |     |
> 
>      |     |    |     |    |                  |    X----------|     |
> 
>      |     |----------X    |                  |    |     |    |     |
> 
>      +-----+    |     |    |==================|    |     |    +-----+
> 
>                 AC    +----+                  +----+     AC
> 
>      Customer         Provider                Provider         Customer
> 
>      Edge 1           Edge 1                  Edge 2           Edge 2
> 
>    Legend:
> 
>         O: Representation of the IETF network slice endpoints (NSE)
> 
>         +: Mapping of NES to PE or CE nodes on IETF network
> 
>         X: Physical interfaces used for realization of IETF network slice
> 
>         S1: L0/L1/L2/L3 services used for realization of IETF network slice
> 
>         T1: Tunnels used for realization of IETF network slice
> 
> and that we  replace the current figure in Endpoint section with several 
> figures, which show connectivity constructs and which are consistent 
> with these RFCs.
> 
> [Reza] It is fine. Please suggest a figure and it can be included in draft
> 
> We would also like to replace 'consumer' with 'customer',
> 
> [Reza] Fine
> 
> add 'attachment circuit', and add a new term, viz, 'IETF Network Slice 
> Service',
> 
> [Reza] Why new term? This is what it is called “IETF Network Slice”.
> 
> whose definition is a set of CEs, a set of connectivity constructs 
> (MP2MP, P2MP, P2P, etc.) between subsets of these CEs and an SLO for 
> each CE sending to each connectivity construct.
> 
>      As an aside, the Endpoint section of the Definitions draft uses the 
> bulk of its prose enumerating what its endpoints are not.  Per Yakov, 
> since there are a potentially infinite number of things which its 
> endpoints are not, this is futile and we would like to remove that prose.
> 
> [Reza] which part of draft are you referring?
> 
>      Yours Irrespectively,
> 
>      Eric and John
> 
>      Juniper Business Use Only
> 
>      > -----Original Message-----
> 
>      > From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
> 
>      > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> 
>      > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:59 AM
> 
>      > To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>; teas@ietf.org
> 
>      > Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in 
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-
> 
>      > definition-00
> 
>      >
> 
>      > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
>      >
> 
>      >
> 
>      > Re-,
> 
>      >
> 
>      > Indeed. That's need to be fixed.
> 
>      >
> 
>      > As we are on the terminology, I do also suggest that the draft is 
> updated to
> 
>      > adhere to RFC8309. Given the recursiveness discussed in the 
> draft, having geo-
> 
>      > coordinates interfaces is also confusing. Inspiring from RFC8309 
> would make
> 
>      > more sense.
> 
>      >
> 
>      > Cheers,
> 
>      > Med
> 
>      >
> 
>      > > -----Message d'origine-----
> 
>      > > De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] Envoyé : mardi 16
> 
>      > > février 2021 17:44 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> 
>      > > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>; teas@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Teas]
> 
>      > > network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
> 
>      > > network-slice-definition-00
> 
>      > >
> 
>      > > I would be happy to use CE and PE.  I would also be happy to use
> 
>      > > completely different words.  The current diagram and 
> terminology makes
> 
>      > > this very confusing, and leads to problems.
> 
>      > >
> 
>      > > Yours,
> 
>      > > Joel
> 
>      > >
> 
>      > > On 2/16/2021 11:39 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> 
>      > > > Re-,
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > Please see inline.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > Cheers,
> 
>      > > > Med
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > >> -----Message d'origine-----
> 
>      > > >> De : Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M.
> 
>      > > >> Halpern
> 
>      > > >> Envoyé : mardi 16 février 2021 17:12 À : teas@ietf.org Objet 
> : Re:
> 
>      > > >> [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
> 
>      > > >> network-slice-definition-00
> 
>      > > >>
> 
>      > > >> The document is not about the request from the external customer
> 
>      > > (the
> 
>      > > >> request for the end-to-end network slice). It is about the 
> request
> 
>      > > >> from other orchestration systems to the IETF Network Slice
> 
>      > > management
> 
>      > > >> systems.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > [Med] ... which is still behaving as the customer role.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > >   Yes, those systems need to know where they intent to
> 
>      > > >> utilize the IETF network slice.  But the IETF network slice does
> 
>      > > not
> 
>      > > >> need to know about that.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > [Med] This is what I fail to see. The orchestrator has an 
> internal
> 
>      > > vision that is not available to the entity asking for a slice. 
> These
> 
>      > > nodes are not even known to the "other orchestration systems" when
> 
>      > > asking for a slice.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > >>
> 
>      > > >> In particular, when we get to talking about configuring the IETF
> 
>      > > >> Network Slice properties, the edge (ingress) that the IETF 
> Network
> 
>      > > >> Slice controller controls (and corresponding egress) is what 
> needs
> 
>      > > to
> 
>      > > >> be provisioned.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > [Med] Agree, but that is a distinct phase.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > BTW, ingress/egress are as a function of the traffic direction. A
> 
>      > > node (PE) may behave as both ingress and egress for the same slice.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > >> It is possible that on the egress side there needs to be
> 
>      > > information
> 
>      > > >> about how to deliver the traffic externally.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > [Med] Agree. That node does not need to be visible (known in
> 
>      > > advance) to the entity that will consume the corresponding slice.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > >    But that would not be
> 
>      > > >> in terms of end-points since from the perspective of the IETF
> 
>      > > Network
> 
>      > > >> Slice, on the egress that is not an endpoint of anything.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > [Med] I agree that "endpoint" is confusing. "Customer 
> Node/Edge" vs
> 
>      > > "Provider Edge" are my favorite here.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > >>
> 
>      > > >> Yours,
> 
>      > > >> Joel
> 
>      > > >>
> 
>      > > >> On 2/16/2021 11:05 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> 
>      > > >>> Hi Joel,
> 
>      > > >>>
> 
>      > > >>> I disagree with this note. I do think that both flavors of
> 
>      > > >> "endpoint" should be included in the draft.
> 
>      > > >>>
> 
>      > > >>> >From the customer standpoint, a slice request cannot be
> 
>      > > >> characterized by elements not visible to the customer. The scope
> 
>      > > of a
> 
>      > > >> requested slice can only be characterized between nodes that are
> 
>      > > >> known to the requestor. This is usually called, CE.
> 
>      > > >>>
> 
>      > > >>> The mapping between a CE and a network device (typically, a PE)
> 
>      > > is
> 
>      > > >> a process that is internal to the slice provider.
> 
>      > > >>>
> 
>      > > >>> The CE-PE link cannot be systematically excluded as some 
> specific
> 
>      > > >> behaviors may need to be enforced in the CE-PE link. Think 
> about a
> 
>      > > >> slice that is implemented by means of a PE-based VPN and which
> 
>      > > >> requires some specific routing + QoS policies at the CE-PE link.
> 
>      > > >>>
> 
>      > > >>> Cheers,
> 
>      > > >>> Med
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > >
> 
>      > _________________________________________________________________
> 
>      > ____
> 
>      > > _
> 
>      > > > ___________________________________________________
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      > > > 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.
> 
>      > > >
> 
>      >
> 
>      > _________________________________________________________________
> 
>      > ________________________________________________________
> 
>      >
> 
>      > 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.
> 
>      >
> 
>      > _______________________________________________
> 
>      > Teas mailing list
> 
>      > Teas@ietf.org
> 
>      > 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!N
> 
>      > Et6yMaO-gk!TrdpM67-tg4psF0dnG7jBV9LisKHxO_oCNxmQXrJhY-
> 
>      > B6MFchY8gBvvb8CNl408$
> 
>      _______________________________________________
> 
>      Teas mailing list
> 
>      Teas@ietf.org
> 
>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>