Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Just my two cents.

 

All the text you quoted says is, “You can use ACTN to achieve network slicing in networks that support ACTN.”

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 30 August 2021 09:59
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

 

Hi WG,

 

while reviewing this draft and the network slice NBI YANG I find a major discrepancy between them.

While draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10 

 

 

  draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-04 says that: 

“ACTN is a

   toolset capable of delivering network slice functionality.  This

   document outlines the application of ACTN and associated enabling

   technologies to provide network slicing in a network that utilizes

   IETF technologies such as IP, MPLS, or GMPLS.  It describes how the

   ACTN functional components can be used to support model-driven

   partitioning of resources into variable-sized bandwidth units to

   facilitate network sharing and virtualization.”

 

On the other side we have a network slicing NBI model completely detached from ACTN that says:

 

“The difference between the ACTN VN model and the IETF Network Slice
   NBI requirements is that the IETF Network Slice NBI is a technology-
   agnostic interface, whereas the VN model is bound to the IETF TE
   Topologies.  The realization of the IETF Network Slice does not
   necessarily require the slice network to support the TE technology.”
 
And
 
“However, the Network Slice SLO and Network Slice
   Endpoint are not clearly defined and there's no direct equivalent.”
 

So is ACTN applicable to network slicing or not? And if yes how? I was expecting to see the NBI model based on the ACTN models with some augmentation to cover the e.g. the non TE parts, the LSO and the endpoints…but we have two completely disjoint modules.

I would say that the two drafts are saying exactly the opposite thing, am I missing something?

 

Thanks,
Daniele  

 

 

From: Teas <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: den 27 augusti 2021 14:49
To: TEAS WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

 

All,

This is start of a *two* week poll on making
draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10 a TEAS working group document.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If
yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see
addressed once the document is a WG document.

The poll ends September 10th.

Thank you,
Pavan and Lou