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

Shunsuke Homma <> Fri, 05 March 2021 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBFD3A278A for <>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 08:26:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00jmi3hWdzI9 for <>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 08:26:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 794733A278E for <>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 08:26:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h18so2533575ils.2 for <>; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 08:26:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FyB3lnebRTM7GDnQ+qNkOcRbVps6JWpiY052z7rlEQk=; b=lmKawGbza2h0tdl6/yOv0fhYOCX5L1b2HNmnzbEsufURI65s4QnTVpByQZS9j/Ljyn Dc2PvTT5vfN8w3qHjzi4XTyKXDlAIx8E3jUB1s4ksiEsd8d3FlzZg4UTPjW0PuEQ7hEN 5dQ6oCZ41It0yp/DX6DkR8bsswQeafv0O20o9gvAwfZOm4pFenR8QqUXSFoAPWbzKjcv u40vJB70bu0PCX2yXyVWEYnrRqOUDTWLFD1iGpaGAJGE2TddS1Rcc9GUQbLH6gbZrGVd i2+8ztI2fDalTrXsRLVJr2kxAYX+b7DnmBJycPd93YjYFxfPVS5OP5LDcJiPdWOXm0rY vFJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FyB3lnebRTM7GDnQ+qNkOcRbVps6JWpiY052z7rlEQk=; b=mWJtgqzsC9oSNrALAdz3MEYV1jLY9GWLEG2CmCqqkTHe8O2Br0VK8IOqRTkS6mudtX waI5hHfFs+69PAjq7m2PMrVLAr19S+rtlU8ycMus5Bh1TtGgJbHfbnBlDH9sPkDTryTK o/mXGbYo748GsqdcedPczhioNIsN5bHeFN9MSoBnelpVl/Hy6sU3YhMeB+ioHSodJtuu z0f1LbjP3aGd84zhGn5MtCQSvtu+S3M5OLOEbUmgSuolRsj0ASGkUNnRfB0Oj24J4Dol WTawKUcqv6trL2Cqi/YoZ01wdMntSOuKZKIpjsoyAjgro5GKbxAa3vKdvdG9pZYFALoZ bY4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533A5YTdwG1yOwzStcKdD2S5WlwVPeWxQJxo87AKmUEzG6CtgWkG uhNARXUhkZkwWwAIMIDfgRfu4Pb3CxM8u4aXXafBt/yZ4Dc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxNSg9VwSSAYF9YogyEX4zByCGPGU00kXnjO4Mda2/Qzi6oVaxXts9ptyOvjPyQrsJZ2LplGQ0rsbIQ99GW1P4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1c0b:: with SMTP id l11mr8999607ilh.187.1614961586087; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 08:26:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <5592_1614855931_6040BEFB_5592_11_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F56BF@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <9646_1614938855_604202E7_9646_42_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F91E8@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <9646_1614938855_604202E7_9646_42_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F91E8@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Shunsuke Homma <>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 01:26:14 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa2e7b05bccc8bee"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 16:26:29 -0000

Thank you for the clarifications. I can understand them and I won't say
that PE/CE/AC can't be applied to IETF Network Slice usages.

I assume that this mismatch is brought by different perceptions about what
network slice. Many people seem to think that network slice is a type of
VPN service, and hope to use the traditional terms. I see network slice as
an aggregate of resources and technologies. Also, I expect that network
slices will be used by vertical industries in B2B2X models, and thus I need
a more abstracted model.

In addition, regarding the term "IETF Network Slice Service", I think
elaboration of the definition would be needed. For example, is this service
 from whose point of view? In B2B2X models, I think what a middle B wants
to see will be the range where a network slice is actually realized. Also,
end customers will never recognize an IETF network slice exists there as
well as other network services. So, I'm not sure if the service endpoint
which is different from the network slice endpoint should be defined.



2021年3月5日(金) 19:07 <>om>:

> Hi Shunsuke,
> Please see inline.
> Cheers,
> Med
> *De :* Shunsuke Homma []
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 4 mars 2021 18:13
> *À :* Joel Halpern Direct <>
> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <>om>;
> *Objet :* Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
> Thanks Med and Joel.
> I agree that CE can be an endpoint of IETF Network Slice in managed CE
> case, and in other cases, IETF Network Slice is PE to PE.
> And this is a reason why I'm hesitating to use the term CE/PE as the
> endpoint of IETF Network Slice. If endpoints may vary depending on underlay
> implementation (e.g., whether CE is managed or not), a logical identifier
> independent of underlay would be needed to simplify network slice model.
> (In my understanding, it was NSE.)
> [Med] CE/PE terms are independent of the underlay. They simply delimit the
> scope of what is visible to a slice customer vs. the internal view of the
> slice provider.
> Also, I understand the concept of "IETF Network Slice Service",  but I
> have some questions. In case that CE is not managed, can we call the
> connection between CEs which includes uncontrollable section IETF Network
> Slice Service?
> [Med] It is still a service because it is where the service is delivered. For unmanaged CEs, the ** Guarantee Scope ** does not include the CE itself but may include the maintenance of attachment circuit if a physical link, for example, is also provided and maintained by the slice provider. It may also include the activation of specific protocols over that circuit by the slice provider. These considerations (activation means, service assurance) should be covered in the slice agreement.
> One more, in the wholesale model, a slice broker may create an E2E network
> slice by combining slices provided from several network providers. In
> such a case, from a broker, where are endpoints in each network provider's
> domain?
> [Med] The slice service will be delimited by the peer PEs (that will
> behave as CEs in the proposed model), while the slice itself is delimited
> by local PEs.
> Regards,
> Shunsuke
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 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.