Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
Shunsuke Homma <shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 28 February 2021 04:21 UTC
Return-Path: <shunsuke.homma.ietf@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 3E95C3A0BD3 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:21:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.804
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 JJTyhQ5GB7y3 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:21:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (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 12F203A0BCC for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q14so15385626ljp.4 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:21:01 -0800 (PST)
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=6vM+Ur20Oc/ro46ikJ1hAvhcH+PFIYdrivi3Y4+F9H4=; b=l3ZcbSZXthxAFFsZ0/+AJsN5xqqU8a6SJ0W9esdmIqbam+61/o6CdHKdjwL1AuPHiq o0L4HjCjb4lYi1MSjLWzHoafkELqrUGPRhDPnRLDJ3inxwG+SQA0enlPGsFtxUhVLaKo gL1Pp4rkfLa5ti6dtQxqOZCeli/IVcvD0FC7NNISfO73rKF0JtmRkTAFkLn/rOayr9Ho kMdVU6Sh98FS4JsU9bQPc+UJi9YHA95IYSSLbsakh3VS+Ci8T59mKUzoEB3akw7gKfDf aKRwWgWTLnamaU/qh/D9bfYWHD1Jzf5LdRHQGpgN2c+4DjTUPStOHMmFC4uBwcffHbh3 G0FQ==
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=6vM+Ur20Oc/ro46ikJ1hAvhcH+PFIYdrivi3Y4+F9H4=; b=f31jx9VIMYv2nu+Z3OZFA7ZNjwgX4FQbYcJ0f721TLwv57/2qC5dTDdhuc2/k/GPSV K2xhhyBEThQBG1Zl21a81ylR/f2lwvVrecqnqtf2tL5XpiUVjxMFNaZhlKRRbNi4gSMI 65YnajMpDsCUUNqezccYg2Wx1MXiUuBR5Yksof7HQQvK6ZulqsBnmfvgi6mXqSYdUU1Y cuMKlFuFWaxnRk7akD9pJ8HrS3oE05yP1u6eGUkRmKx7PklmU/ZvgScGPdnMHaUkVCA4 qPYqpnds9b711ZdQ91hoVW5q+bcmsHXogoZ7vg+1HhK0EtzsRJkRzyPxlhSHoqQyFijS A7ZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YYrp1+dZrJ2X88oxqr/g+Ny3f2MKdjBPpww8R+dHSlO7laqTA WMqmtBlHrOG6avVCk7p1smIi5kjasRqXCLIpwAI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzT2aDWVbwnMh0+vIwEoEyfqhbWH41D6n8P/HFGprax8DK2zgcBwHGbKXtMjG8QpEZo3drFVQ41A4P3j6STchI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:958b:: with SMTP id w11mr5746239ljh.110.1614486059910; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:20:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <27179_1614103167_6035427F_27179_485_2_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315D83ED@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <54DAE6D4-7435-4E1A-9538-51F2ED35B132@gmail.com> <CAE4dcxnhjszy7OMD-JusSnDBg2oR7Buo4XKO6gXk1-DrQc2FsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE4dcxmeSLLaqa2Q7VTF=EJZXiyMV6hft2pCMSASAWb+N6PmVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGHSPWNmr3RQrSGsbsEvyGoLqtY1eqPQ=uOv=oDdQFNz3_VLiA@mail.gmail.com> <069101d70b64$3d32bf10$b7983d30$@olddog.co.uk> <81cdb36e29e64fd79bafeb578926e6a8@huawei.com> <CABNhwV2ZVT47m17KARJDjXzr232bs5srp2KdD7njmgTPw0=8BQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb9cd6F7GGq7Pw-jPpxzwQtTE7M_DY0oQ83mmENoEHkTFw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3Dz86VkePniMGmF6vOvu63VEN9J-izHZ__=qn97cqzdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb9f9B-BUobJGV2X90tCUdAtHzoZHWth4nbqKG9cN3r1Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV0q82AobMnSBYfSaCRUNKe9=yb=ZrTFaS1YGF-UOFBeWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb9dXMHSJ1psYGbUvm=6J3XFfAaZ9BwNe+F4Q_moR=Ro0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3mZVbhbNc-W_LtfUkVnT5KhqZUNFXc+we_vwBEQKj8Gw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3mZVbhbNc-W_LtfUkVnT5KhqZUNFXc+we_vwBEQKj8Gw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shunsuke Homma <shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:20:48 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKr2Fb81Un6YeyE=4LPFhEpLFOn9wgzVphn8DcUMZc9vDcB9Fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>, "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>, Young Lee <younglee.tx@gmail.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000018886405bc5dd47d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4ic48_fFgJShdT0iXH_mCSg5eLo>
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: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 04:21:07 -0000
Hi Gyan, Please see inline. On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 3:37 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Shunsuke > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 9:06 AM Shunsuke Homma < > shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Gyan, >> >> Please see inline. >> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:35 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Shunsuke >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:01 AM Shunsuke Homma < >>> shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Joel and Gyan. >>>> >>>> Yes, I agree that SFC classifier or tunnel endpoint can be a PE router. >>>> Meanwhile, I assume there are cases that CF/VNE runs on non-PE/CE router. >>>> For example, in case that SFC is performed within the provider's DC (e.g., >>>> 5G DN), the ingress GW or ToR switch will be a classifier. Then, the GW/ToR >>>> can be called CE or PE? >>>> >>>> Certainly, in MPLS world, MPLS termination point is conventionally >>>> called PE, but I feel PE/CE may not be generally used in DC or any other >>>> field. Actually, Geneve termination point is called tunnel endpoint, and >>>> VxLAN also use VTEP (VxLAN Tunnel End Point), not CE/PE. (Sorry if my >>>> understanding is incorrect...) >>>> >>> >>> Gyan> Agreed no PE/CE handoff. For any of the NOV3 overlay >>> encapsulations types the decapsulation happens on the leaf before packet >>> is handed off to host endpoint. Because it’s a host endpoint which would >>> be a server and not a customers “CPE” gear CE switch or router as in the >>> MPLS world or even with broadband BNG subscribers. So that’s the big >>> difference in the Data Center framework from an operators perspective that >>> is all the operators domain. You can think of if from a cloud perspective >>> the network infrastructure is IAAS “infrastructure as a service” and server >>> infrastructure is PAAS “platform as a service”. >>> >> >> Shunsuke > Thank you for your elaboration. As you pointed out, frameworks >> of NSP network and Data Center are different, and it may be difficult to >> manage with the same model. Meanwhile, in network slicing, it is needed to >> provide "E2E" connectivity guaranteed specific SLA/SLO, and network slice >> will be sometimes deployed across both NSP network and Data Center. For >> example, in a smart factory scenario, robots may be connected to their >> operating server on NSP's cloud with Geneve-based network slice. Then, a >> slice endpoint will be Geneve tunnel endpoint, neither CE nor PE. >> > > Gyan> In a DC NVO3 overlay / underlay model typical leaf/spine CLOS > folded spine architecture, the demarcation is clearly defined if you apply > the MPLS parity to DC NVO3 directly. In that framework the spine nodes > are like the P routers performing in line data plane forwarding similar to > P label switching leaf to leaf over the folded spine as well as termination > of control plane and the leafs terminating NVO3 tunnel endpoint vtep for > vxlan for example perform the encapsulation / decapsulation similar to PE > label imposition and disposition. So applying the same MPLS parity to NVO3 > the leaf would be the PE and the TOR connected switch would then be the > CE. So the same PE/CE nomenclature can still apply. > > For non NVO3 BGP only DC CLOS folded spine architecture we still have the > leaf and spine nodes and here also the leaf would be the PE and TOR > hanging off the leaf would be the CE. > > I think in any model even in GMPLS mode for example where you have an > peering adjacency such as inter-as tie that would be your NNI PE-PE > relationship. > > As far as SFC classifier that would be on the leaf switch acting as the PE > demarcation to the CE TOR switch. > > So you can really apply the PE/CE nomenclature ubiquitously to any > scenario. > Shunsuke > Thank you very much. I understood that PE/CE model can be applied in every network slice scenario from the aspect of traffic handoffs. I agree with that, and it seems reasonable. Then, my next concern is whether we should bring terms of MPLS world to overlay world. (It depends on the realization, but I assume network slices will be realized with overlay technologies in many cases.) NVO3 and other overlay technologies use "endpoint", and I feel it is more compatible to network slice scenarios. NSE can be also applied to every network slice scenario. As Reza mentioned, NSE is a logical entity of network slice layer and will be mapped to (virtual/physical) node in technology layer such as CE//PE for MPLS, VNE, VTEP, etc. Also, I think some modification or extension of definitions of CE/PE for these usage if we use CE/PE terms instead of NSE. As Kenichi pointed, "customer" of CE actually means "consumer". PE may mean edge of IETF technology-enabled domain, not provider network, in such usage. Anyway, I don't see any serious problems whichever is chosen, and think this is a matter of taste finally. Or we need more consideration from different aspects. > >> For customers, it would be better that they can always request a slice >> with the same information/data model whatever their target is. If there are >> cases where CE/PE can't be fit, I think we should avoid using them as a >> slice endpoint. >> # If we focus on only transport (i.e., IP/MPLS based network) and never >> extend the scope to other fields, it's ok to use CE/PE. >> >> >> >>>> >>>> If PE/CE are conceptual entities and can be applied to any cases, not >>>> only MPLS(SR) networks, I assume that NSE and PE/CE are the same. Whichever >>>> is fine to me. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Shunsuke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 3:21 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree that the PE / CE nomenclature can be used for any scenario >>>>> where their is a customer handoff “demarcation” and only in those cases can >>>>> apply the network slicing endpoint concept. >>>>> >>>>> Access - wireline/wireless >>>>> Wireline >>>>> MPLS/SR core VPN overlay - typical PE-CE demark >>>>> >>>>> MPLS/SR inter-as provider handoffs >>>>> >>>>> Wireless - RAN xHaul - 3GPP gateway to UE - fixed or mobile wireless >>>>> 4G/5G - UE to Gateway is the handoff point >>>>> >>>>> OTN- >>>>> OTN GMPLS/MPLS-TP packet core - typically that is the operators >>>>> infrastructure and so no customer handoff. >>>>> >>>>> Data Center- >>>>> Data Center - typically no customer handoff >>>>> Typical DC flavors - >>>>> CLOS architecture BGP only DC >>>>> NVO3 - leaf/spine - vxlan/nvgre/geneve >>>>> >>>>> Cloud - IAAS infrastructure as a service so no handoff >>>>> >>>>> Content provider- no handoff >>>>> >>>>> Web or content hosting - also no handoff paid for service offering >>>>> >>>>> So in summary the only two scenarios where you have a customer handoff >>>>> is the operator access layer wireline and wireless above. >>>>> >>>>> So I think the PE / CE nomenclature fits the bill even with the >>>>> network slicing paradigm shift. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards >>>>> >>>>> Gyan >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:59 PM Shunsuke Homma < >>>>> shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm wondering if CE/PE can cover all cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, can SFC CF/SFF (ref. RFC 7665) or Geneve tunnel >>>>>> endpoint/NVE (ref. RFC8926) put the internal of a provider network be an >>>>>> endpoint of IETF network slice? And if so, can we call them CE or PE? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Shunsuke >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 9:43 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is an interesting discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand their is a paradigm shift with Enhanced VPN network >>>>>>> slicing framework, however I think as John and Eric stated and I agree with >>>>>>> their proposed update that “CE” replace “Network slice endpoint” and PE >>>>>>> replace “Network Slice Realization Endpoint”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From an industry perspective from an operators point of view, I >>>>>>> can see that maybe the Network slicing paradigm shift is being driven by 5G >>>>>>> which has its key constructs of XHaul front back and mid haul vRAN and the >>>>>>> mobile handset UE 3GPP user data plane and how much the CE is now aware of >>>>>>> the underlay. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As Adrian pointed out the CE based VPN versus PE based VPNs and the >>>>>>> trade off for operators with CE based VPNs and how much knowledge are >>>>>>> operators willing to give their customers about the underlay. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As we all know that even though 5G is the industry driver of network >>>>>>> slicing, the framework of network slicing as far as degree of isolation and >>>>>>> steering is all based on the very overlay VPN concept now enhanced VPN+ to >>>>>>> provide an improved user or SLA experience. So the concept of network >>>>>>> slicing underpinned of overlay VPN with underlay resources and steering >>>>>>> can be used for any use case with requirements of a higher grade SLA and >>>>>>> not just 5G , such as DETNET or any content provider video streaming >>>>>>> service offering or any service requiring a higher degree of isolation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Their are definitely trade off from an economics and value added >>>>>>> service and ROI perspective for CE versus PE based VPNs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another point noted in this thread which I think is important and >>>>>>> that is “confusion” related to changing the historical PE / CE terminology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That being said I do agree with John and Eric on their proposed >>>>>>> change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gyan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 2:14 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed good discussion about the terms, and thanks to Adrian for >>>>>>>> the explanation and summary of the PE-based and CE-based VPNs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the two figures provided in [1], the realization of IETF network >>>>>>>> slice in both the service layer and the tunnel layer are the same, the only >>>>>>>> difference is the position the NSE represents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thus I also support the proposal of using the well-known terms >>>>>>>> CE/PE to describe the endpoints of IETF network slice. This could help to >>>>>>>> reduce the possible confusions caused by using one term to represent >>>>>>>> different positions. This could also help to understand the mapping from >>>>>>>> IETF network slice requirements to its realization, which could be based on >>>>>>>> the architecture and technologies described in the enhanced VPN draft [3]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Adrian >>>>>>>> Farrel >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:52 PM >>>>>>>> *To:* 'Young Lee' <younglee.tx@gmail.com>; 'Luis M. Contreras' < >>>>>>>> contreras.ietf@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> *Cc:* 'Joel M. Halpern' <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; teas@ietf.org; >>>>>>>> 'Eric Gray' <ewgray2k@gmail.com>; 'John E Drake' <jdrake= >>>>>>>> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)' < >>>>>>>> reza.rokui@nokia.com>; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good thread, and really good to see the debate on the WG list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’m piling in in response to Young, mainly because that’s the email >>>>>>>> I happen to have open. But also because the perspective of Young and Luis >>>>>>>> should be valuable to us in this context. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While I think that the usage of “CE” and “PE” has a long history in >>>>>>>> packet networks, I don’t believe the concepts are firmly linked only to >>>>>>>> packet. They are pretty much what they call themselves: the PE is at the >>>>>>>> edge of the “provider” == “underlay” network, and the CE is at the edge of >>>>>>>> the “consumer” == “overlay” network. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I find that, as the discussion continues, we are still missing a >>>>>>>> really clear figure to help us talk about what we are describing. But >>>>>>>> Reza’s [1] is a much better start than anything previous. Here I see the >>>>>>>> classic distinction between a CE-based VPN and a PE-based VPN [2], but we >>>>>>>> have to ask ourselves carefully whether we **really** want the >>>>>>>> CE-based approach in our network slicing: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - What are the considerations for how much knowledge of >>>>>>>> the underlay network has to be shared to the CE? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - What are the considerations for how an underlay >>>>>>>> distinguishes CE-originated slicing traffic? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These are pretty much the same questions that CE-based VPNs have to >>>>>>>> answer. Of course, the concept of a “provider-managed CE” muddies these >>>>>>>> waters somewhat. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Conversely, the port-based PE-based VPN has none of these problems, >>>>>>>> but does have to agree on the “Access Connection” encoding, and that is >>>>>>>> either payload-sensitive (like in PWE3) or technology-aware (like in L3VPN). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But my opinion of all of this is coloured by thinking about >>>>>>>> enhanced VPNs (VPN+) [3] and IETF network slices as the same thing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also think that Luis’ point about contiguous or stitched segments >>>>>>>> is important. There are, I think, two cases to be considered: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. The multi-domain IETF network slice. Here the problem is >>>>>>>> very much the same as the multi-AS L3VPN. We have to consider how the >>>>>>>> “service request” is mapped from one domain to another. But it may help to >>>>>>>> recall that, for all our dreaming, end-to-end multi-AS MPLS-TE tunnels are >>>>>>>> not much of a thing: domains don’t like sharing information about or >>>>>>>> control of their network resources. Thus the “E-NNI” between slice domains >>>>>>>> may be as much of a service interface as the “UNI” between consumer and >>>>>>>> provider. >>>>>>>> 2. The 5G architecture considers stitching slices from >>>>>>>> different technology networks to provide an end-to-end slice. From a >>>>>>>> consumer’s point of view, this is exactly what happens, but it is not clear >>>>>>>> to me whether this is really what happens in a deployment. Surely there is >>>>>>>> aggregation as we go down the technology layers and into the “transport” >>>>>>>> networks. That is, there may be very, very many micro slices in the RAN, >>>>>>>> but as this moves onto the IP transport, it is likely that the slicing is >>>>>>>> aggregated. That means that the stitching of slices actually follows a >>>>>>>> hierarchical model with recursion. The interface between slice domains is >>>>>>>> the “UNI”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Net-net, I like John’s original proposal. I hope we can take that >>>>>>>> as our base point and factor in further discussions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ibycGzi5cxJUJSvRxm9OsQdDqn8/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [2] RFC 4026 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [3] draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Young Lee >>>>>>>> *Sent:* 24 February 2021 10:22 >>>>>>>> *To:* Luis M. Contreras <contreras.ietf@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> *Cc:* Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com>; >>>>>>>> teas@ietf.org; Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>; John E Drake < >>>>>>>> jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Joel M. Halpern < >>>>>>>> jmh@joelhalpern.com>; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is an interesting discussion. I am now in the mobile side and >>>>>>>> reconginize that there are a number of scenarios that may need transport >>>>>>>> network slices (which is now called IETF network slices). For instance, >>>>>>>> possibly slices may be needed in the fronthaul, midhaul and backhaul as >>>>>>>> well as within DC networks that host the functions. Other than backhaul >>>>>>>> networks, the terms CE and PE may not be adequate because for the >>>>>>>> aforementioned transport networks except the backhaul, CE and PE >>>>>>>> terminology would not easily apply. For each of the aforementioned >>>>>>>> transport subnetworks, I think using slice endpoints makes more sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, I agree with Luis on this point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My two cents, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Young >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2021년 2월 24일 (수) 오후 7:00, Luis M. Contreras < >>>>>>>> contreras.ietf@gmail.com>님이 작성: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Med and Joel for the answers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Noting what you said, and assuming that we are covering not only >>>>>>>> IP/MPLS technologies, probably we need to associate the same idea of CE and >>>>>>>> PE to technologies where those roles are not commonly associated, such as >>>>>>>> OTN, DWDM or wireless / microwave, since all of them can be potential >>>>>>>> targets of the IETF Network Slicing realization. Then, if we follow this >>>>>>>> same rationale and finally the WG decides to go in this direction, I guess >>>>>>>> we need to span the CE and PE conception also to those, maybe explaining >>>>>>>> this in the definitions draft. Am I right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Med, when I was referring to IETF Network Slice of technology X or >>>>>>>> Y I was thinking on the realization. So my point here is that in case you >>>>>>>> have an IETF Network Slice let's say realized as IP/MPLS, and another one >>>>>>>> let's say realized on OTN or DWDM, where the IP/MPLS slice is supported by >>>>>>>> the OTN/DWDM slice, can we consider that the CE is IP/MPLS and the PE is >>>>>>>> OTN/DWDM? It sounds strange to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Luis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> El mié, 24 feb 2021 a las 7:16, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> >>>>>>>> escribió: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Luis, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, this is all about recursion, service decomposition and >>>>>>>> manipulating customer/provider ROLES. In all cases, there are reference >>>>>>>> points delimiting the scope of the slice from both the customer view (we >>>>>>>> call them, customer edges) and provider view (provider edges). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing prevents that at the realization stage, two PEs can’t be >>>>>>>> connected. I’m thinking about the example where inter-AS VPN can be used to >>>>>>>> implement an IETF network slice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW, can you please clarify what do you mean by a “IETF Network >>>>>>>> Slice of technology X or Y” as slice is technology-agnostic? Thank >>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Med >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *De :* Luis M. Contreras [mailto:contreras.ietf@gmail.com] >>>>>>>> *Envoyé :* mardi 23 février 2021 23:46 >>>>>>>> *À :* Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; >>>>>>>> Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com>; John E >>>>>>>> Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; teas@ietf.org; Joel >>>>>>>> M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> >>>>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding the CE / PE discussion, I have doubts if this would apply >>>>>>>> to scenarios where we could have stitching of IETF Network Slices or in >>>>>>>> scenarios where an IETF Network Slice of technology X is supported on IETF >>>>>>>> Network Slice of technology Y. While end-point can work in all the cases, I >>>>>>>> think that CE / PE don't become naturally applicable in all cases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Respect to the discussion on IETF Network Slice Service, I think it >>>>>>>> is redundant since we are talking of consumer/customer and provider in the >>>>>>>> context of IETF Network Slice, so being "Service" redundant there. >>>>>>>> Probably adds more confusion than clarification. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Luis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Teas mailing list >>>>>>>> Teas@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Gyan Mishra* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike >>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver >>>>>>> Spring, MD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Teas mailing list >>>>>>> Teas@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/> >>>>> >>>>> *Gyan Mishra* >>>>> >>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike >>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver >>>>> Spring, MD >>>>> >>>>> -- >>> >>> <http://www.verizon.com/> >>> >>> *Gyan Mishra* >>> >>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >>> >>> >>> >>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver >>> Spring, MD >>> >>> -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > > > *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD > >
- [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Kiran Makhijani
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Kiran Makhijani
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Eric Gray
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Luis M. Contreras
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Luis M. Contreras
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Young Lee
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Young Lee
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Krzysztof Szarkowicz
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… John E Drake
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… Krzysztof Szarkowicz
- Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-t… mohamed.boucadair