Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow

[[e-mail]]

Hi Kenichi, 

I agree this makes sense even if I think that this can be handled by the protocol used to place a request (confirmed commit in netconf, for example). 

A successful feasibility check does not guarantee that a subsequent request will be accepted unless some resource preservations are made, though. 

Cheers, 
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Teas <[e-mail]> De la part de Ogaki, Kenichi
> Envoyé : jeudi 30 septembre 2021 10:39
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow
> 
> Hi Adrian and Med,
> 
> As I wrote below before, a feasibility check request step may be
> introduced before the creation request.
> A feasibility check has a broad sense, but we can limit the scope to the
> available resource check to create a slice.
> This may be not used by an end user(consumer), but a Customer higher level
> operations system* may require to avoid the creation failure or suspended
> state.
> It corresponds to VN compute of Sec. 4.3.1 of actn-vn-yang model.
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/WZKp2PHrPqH5J5_km8Mz8P2pSVU/
> 
> *Figure 1 in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-04
> 
> Thanks,
> Kenichi
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 12:45 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> > For that reason, I think it would be wrong to document a workflow.
> > (This is a change to my original opinion!)
> >
> > Maybe add a sentence to explain that the order that the architectural
> > networks are constructed is open for operational choice.
> 
> Seems reasonable. Internals to the NSC should be kep as such (especially,
> the second and third bullets of your list).
> 
> Another approach would be to focus only on the visible external behavior,
> e.g.,:
> 
> - The network exposes its (slice) capabilities
> - The customer requests a slice
> - The NSC maps the requests to the capabilities while applies provider
> policies (if any) and then creates the resource partition
> - The NSC reports back to the customer as a function of the previous step
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Teas <[e-mail]> De la part de Adrian Farrel Envoyé :
> > lundi 27 septembre 2021 20:25 À : [e-mail] Objet : [Teas] Network
> > slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow
> >
> > Dependent slightly on the resolution of issue #6 (architecture and
> > terminology), we could document a workflow.
> >
> > For example,:
> > - customer requests a slice
> > - NSC maps slice to a slice group
> > - NSC maps slice group to a resource partition
> > - NSC allocates resources to the resource partition
> >
> > But it seems to me that these steps could happen in pretty much any
> > order depending to operational preferences and possibly the technology
> > of the network.
> >
> > For that reason, I think it would be wrong to document a workflow.
> > (This is a change to my original opinion!)
> >
> > Maybe add a sentence to explain that the order that the architectural
> > networks are constructed is open for operational choice.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.