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

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 04 April 2021 12:21 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 640603A1059 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 05:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.784
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAY_BE_FORGED=2.699, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 yKh-0LWpL_Zk for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 05:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 6BD8A3A1053 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 05:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 134CL9YU007006; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:21:09 +0100
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710B42203B; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:21:09 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B34B2203A; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:21:09 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (84.93.167.212.plusnet.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [84.93.167.212] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 134CL77q026716 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:21:07 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Greg Mirsky'" <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "'Tarek Saad'" <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "'Kireeti Kompella'" <kireeti@juniper.net>, "'Manish Gupta'" <manishgupta@juniper.net>, <teas@ietf.org>, "'John E Drake'" <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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> <MN2PR05MB66239ACEF39F04C622ED51E6C7799@MN2PR05MB6623.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <218C08BA-342C-4FDF-A0E9-E91D53485BFD@juniper.net> <CA+RyBmWnsehgfib5kKpc2e8HEZVFfX1wXGwfneY4VxAM6Yg5Dw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmWnsehgfib5kKpc2e8HEZVFfX1wXGwfneY4VxAM6Yg5Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:21:06 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <02d301d7294c$fda39b10$f8ead130$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02D4_01D72955.5F6A9B20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKkHwJGzCaQ8Mp5a65/8LWCXraT6QKYoIm5AZRKeBQCNZIg8QHABUFOATfBGTcBuyoGHgJ3C+3LAidao9oCk6Eobah4CI8g
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.93.167.212
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-26070.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.503-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--24.503-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-26070.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--24.503000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: jFqw+1pFnMyyoI+bK8UPQnFPUrVDm6jtiRPU6vvejXIZSz1vvG+0mqDa I//0LQh5O8u97ZRuxBRpk0mR1VSy4IKxR8t+s2kUlTsGW3DmpUtXbGxk5t82J3Ck2RY/IOXu0Zs TmMaGSWccjPiHTsRKFINtFeB9T+8RmlcxhEw1LZwea0JeKHt/06UfpvLQYumSEt/W/Pt5w8cIB1 BBeG/jKGhc5L0SxUVbtG0BY9NecpIZ1VI1DVL4ZczSKGx9g8xh2FA7wK9mP9eBLkRcPaptzfwZh 8MzSrH8OelJXrqHws0aAF0i3lwvcFypVJFmh6sLL8+mpRda1YP3+mUqDWUKyMHb9zQ15FMVJiJp fssK6r5QamLtET7ByLl67mvdFFv+DBEPsrpFaNT6zT5BlgBw3/aldN464boKoUhuKHSz/jZCdQL WN9PCCyh4hxBANUMZ7Gq1DlzvVa+ZRBKsj/jrq3J3WU1dX/p8tKJg80IcQC/Dra5IbmQvVjGiYf cjIklYBB9CTY/Ec2+NNS0jJidRkYQWpzpPGu4Y10Srp1vLqScfqkfNzTRFSjsxxT893UTiyiuPA GvF4d422uoEm245fojjTDpHKwYmhzv5Bvz7TekItCy6ZX/lL4IWSprjdsebAy6/bz1VsIjFQNPE ve+5IPj696hz7L2ZZmGkOF0fx8wsS7de5tK9AWK3N9p/OFh6z8j+bxoiWAx9sUaI3ICGLooFoou rcxMDU/yV8XxciZGUQWt7uSfhDOzM03bN6zeIcaD+wPaBYtaSiza26cvwNNkY+KIbxMxzVIVGpQ SjDht4P75S4we5oIlD3BWfSIDz++dawfB52C6eAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1B0Hk1Q1KyI9euiYe 3o8eEprfkiB9+n/4kYXbobxJbLyU/oX+tpNmD7dy56DTrSQ8xsFyLvWs3/nI3mFw1LT2AW/YBEe catzgx8VTU8zFSA+kK598Yf3Mg==
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/AEO7X_WymrcJjw_2deU9U0cMJPM>
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, 04 Apr 2021 12:21:20 -0000

Hi,

 

1.	I think John’s text is a very good starting point. Thanks for that. Stick it in the draft and we can polish it.
2.	Connection constructs are not simply rooted at *a* CE because mp2p, mp2mp.
3.	Yes, a slice service may include multiple connection constructs
4.	Yes, an SLO applies to a sender’s data within a single connection construct. A connection construct may have one sender (p2p, p2mp) or multiple senders (mp2p, mp2mp).
5.	Yes, a bidirectional connection construct may exist, but it doesn’t have to have symmetric SLOs. (Actually it is an mp2mp services with only two end points.) So, yes, two SLOs for a bidirectional p2p connections, and those SLOs may be identical.

 

Best,

Adrian

 

From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: 04 April 2021 04:04
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>et>; Manish Gupta <manishgupta@juniper.net>et>; teas@ietf.org; John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

 

Hi Tarek,

thank you for bringing up these questions. I've been thinking, playing in my mind with the SLO in a network slice.

I agree that the SLO is for an ordered pair of CEs, and thus it is unidirectional regardless of the connection matrix. But I think that there might be a use case for a bidirectional P2P connection, especially if [A, B] and [B, A] SLOs are identical. Also, a bidirectional P2P connection might be a useful construct when directions are sharing each other fate under the protection switchover scenario.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Regards,

Greg

 

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 7:31 PM Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote:

John/all,

I can glean the following from this definition. Let me know if misinterpreted.

1) A connection supporting a network slice is unidirectional. A corollary is: SLO(s) are unidirectional too.

2) From a sending CE, there are only 2 types of connectivity matrices:

*	P2P unidirectional
*	P2MP unidirectional

Using the above type of matrices on a sending CE, one can realize any of network slice connectivity type required – e.g., quoting your example, a MP2P can be realized by (N – 1) P2P unidirectional connectivity matrices on the sending CEs.

 3) The SLOs are per matrix type – either P2P or P2MP. Is the definition anywhere precluding having multiple connectivity types of matrices from a sending CE for the same network slice?(e.g. a mix of (n x P2P) and m x P2MP connectivity matrices on the same sending CE for the same network slice)?

 Regards,

Tarek

 On 4/3/21, 4:06 PM, "Teas on behalf of John E Drake" <teas-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>  on behalf of jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote:

     Hi,

     As a follow-up to the email, below, that Eric and I sent in late February, here is our proposed definition of an IETF Network Slice Service:

     IETF Network Slice Service - A service provider instantiates a service for a customer which is specified in terms of a set of the customer's endpoints (CEs), a set of connectivity matrices (MP2MP, P2MP, MP2P, and P2P) between subsets of these CEs and an SLO for each CE sending to each connectivity matrix.  I.e., 

in a given IETF network slice service there may be multiple connectivity matrices of the same or different type, each connectivity matrix may be between a different subset of CEs, and for a given connectivity matrix each sending CE has its own SLO and each SLO may be different.  It is also the case that a given sending CE may have a different SLO for each connectivity matrix to which it is sending.  Note that a given sending CEs's SLO for a given connectivity matrix applies between it and each of the receiving CEs for that connectivity matrix. 

     This results in the following connectivity matrices:

              For a MP2MP connectivity matrix with N CEs, each of the N sending CEs has its own SLO and each may be different

              For a P2MP connectivity matrix, there is only one sending CE and there is only one SLO

              For a MP2P connectivity matrix with N CEs, each of the N - 1 sending CEs has its own SLO and each may be different

              For a P2P unidirectional connectivity matrix, there is only one sending CE and there is only one SLO

              For a P2P bidirectional connectivity matrix, there are two sending CEs, there are two SLOs, and each may be different 

    If an IETF network slice service customer wants to have hub and spoke connectivity between N CEs in order to control how traffic is distributed between its CEs, it requests a set of N - 1 P2P unidirectional connectivity matrices, each between a sending CE spoke and the hub CE, and a P2MP connectivity matrix between the sending CE hub and the spoke CEs. 

     It should be noted that per [RFC4364} section 9 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4364#section-9) an IETF network slice service customer may actually be its own IETF network slice service provider in the same or different provider network.

     For a given IETF network slice service, the IETF network slice customer and the IETF network slice provider agree, on a per-CE basis which end of the attachment circuit provides the service demarcation point.  This determines whether the attachment circuit is included in any SLOs for the subject CE.