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

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 01 September 2021 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 CA3F23A17C1; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 F1YQwbImoI6d; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (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 67CEE3A17BE; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 181JoYFT002300; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 20:50:34 +0100
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7744604B; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 20:50:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD01B4603D; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 20:50:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 20:50:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([195.166.134.103]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 181JoWXT023799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 20:50:33 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Daniele Ceccarelli'" <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'Vishnu Pavan Beeram'" <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, "'TEAS WG'" <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: "'TEAS WG Chairs'" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <6f076887-1887-4e41-a48d-6c92b282c29c@AM5EUR02FT020.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB82954D0C1EE5202964645F88F0CB9@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM8PR07MB82954D0C1EE5202964645F88F0CB9@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 20:50:31 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <0cb401d79f6a$9f8767c0$de963740$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0CB5_01D79F73.014C6C00"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQICS6XOTg68mgwKlyC3cEJnc2zatQG5yhNdqyxvUKA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 195.166.134.103
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.0.1018-26382.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--25.833-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--25.833-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.1018-26382.002
X-TMASE-Result: 10--25.832600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: b/1IsOqez6fxIbpQ8BhdbKwxbZnudyr7BOUCyNp1JmnCvo6DOxRiGgHv Yyr9Z+5l4xQoYvWP3RfQj4VaaZCFx3g35vRjOwTYlVHM/F6YkvT8vWy4J4eAKQbYcy9YQl6elBO SDMO8djY1k46Ej9DcgxI59+uRUp4kRmltozaoZo0gRdds68ezIODTYjejIZTwctZudseHPS3mxz 8jq9dj3ax+JYmIH/KKI/MThpgoFy5LPmWmnzTqqs+Qb/9oChYJSuH+GfgmQGdZX8SVltzaZbnKe olHNmVghoeq/iuuNkVU241fSVXbhuDuNuDdF/SgJNzc11O35nr17lqbebntfS196sn93sBvPprG 3ItTyv/Uy3Wdw7UH8Plh3PEah3h1zj8fPxf/liT4AIbmhYnu0ovOGTCbVKU4+DQ7FC7piD2L2sC eHVx5veSXT/ru9uRZTYP229Ekev7JMGDPqGXR1/rNPkGWAHDfHA5wH3/21xG6pZ/o2Hu2YSLywW Z/CAIYynHMyM8MPJ2y30IXTXvfRgwIsQZbtzZw/Sl5cYQQGW8O8pJojG7qSlcbfIj2Ta9sh80vs P8cwQ4odYefEiLfeYPbw023vELIKQF5X/V3WxnfSQNpZkETVNBO21OxlsovTmg3Ze6YIL1UJ5HC TeTZbltjg4TeQXoJXI8ocGM4/ianv9vq9MVaeCYRREGYqtmUmRKFhwukYf0QuBjmMDZDSUv+Gv9 gyZL/rCCXG3Lpn8QAFmb/zOv8CCV2/JhlgPLPnTqdU4w65WkSwak5eNXy+8PdL43UT9T6HN6L1e ChrlGpX+r0oWBUyBVMJkS2GE70GAdnzrnkM49r34lUqic7t4tkBWmEtb9teSC65CityAzssfEHb Q7VAW+sW1ny6A/ghasnxYwDNHte8ut4WdW/iX7cGd19dSFd
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4SG_1gXz7-qmIeidmyzL1tZ8A5k>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
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, 01 Sep 2021 19:50:47 -0000

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 <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 30 August 2021 09:59
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>om>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
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 <teas-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org> > On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: den 27 augusti 2021 14:49
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org> >
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org> >
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