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

Adrian Farrel <> Thu, 02 September 2021 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20933A07F9; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 02:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7M1td3s26i8J; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 02:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C27503A0803; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 02:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 1829sIFr000529; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:54:18 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A7E46082; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:54:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B19846081; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:54:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:54:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 1829sH8k023013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:54:17 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Daniele Ceccarelli'" <>, "'Vishnu Pavan Beeram'" <>, "'TEAS WG'" <>
Cc: "'TEAS WG Chairs'" <>
References: <> <> <0cb401d79f6a$9f8767c0$de963740$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:54:16 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <0d5701d79fe0$7e26ed50$7a74c7f0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0D58_01D79FE8.DFEBCA80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQICS6XOTg68mgwKlyC3cEJnc2zatQG5yhNdAgkA5LICa1CRbKsJtSVA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.004-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.004-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--14.004400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: eVEkOcJu0F7xIbpQ8BhdbPHkpkyUphL9GnGYpZN+xAi/md2adk3dRD5S ThKV5SgZie/e/BCrCKUZyYPGlY3t+sOiXRC56ox371Wx2uUbPLdDr8MVm6DK3Vti/oq364XYzEV DGnc+EfKahG/i8Ja1Yx++j1Rb0iZe/7PvFa8I/I9ZwLSBgxghaI5UafLmrvaGbwcTDkGofhBfPC hVhdu3PiOEfEoxqcEMqULTfmF5uZFMDzVnlUcvfXGg/sD2gWLWqf/efKFN1nCH4I6QZJ07kX1Co vfQ6Tx4SpAFNe4DUJ4RCGIKk+g8IgafQfBo1HPyIj0zFI5DoJKKMa8PCKgA/bjXwg7sFIZQuj84 zzhk0gNu1m6K/uMtBRQAXi4Ga9GRlcWN/Q0QByxTqzaeVVOfNfoLR4+zsDTtqFhHt/jREalJUnb Xqa4cyTR++IwHX5RBYRrEDdROD4V80L4WlOB2RsSXmwAFL+GZZOxZWovm1S7UtCvSjJhQy+bzqP 5qzrQTraF5BlULsAc=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 09:54:36 -0000

Hi again Daniele,


> That’s a quibble that only solves the issue partially. 

> Should we use ACTN to do network slicing in networks that support

> ACTN and the Network Slicing NBI model in networks that’s don’t

> support it? 


You are comparing two things that are not the same.

The Network Slicing NBI is a YANG model for use on the customer service interface. That is, it allows the customer and provider to communicate about the network slice that is to be provided. 

ACTN is an architecture. That is, it describes how the management components may be arranged/structured to deliver function in a network.


You can use the Network Slicing NBI at an interface in the ACTN architecture.

It could be used at the CMI (in the same way that the L3SM and L2SM can be): see Section 4.1.

Or it could be used above the CNC: see Section 4.2