Re: [Teas] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices: Network Slice vs. VPN(+)

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed, 05 May 2021 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 62A113A0A7E for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2021 06:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.116
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.116 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.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 9X4nYDRgw3oL for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2021 06:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (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 79F1B3A0934 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 06:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.9]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4FZy6Y4rRGz5w1m; Wed, 5 May 2021 15:21:57 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1620220917; bh=iXEueXwzaW2V/nI3atUwTaWID67jNpds5/Xb+tBbDoY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=xhx7IWRbJZYxADpCmFroVfJxCNOc/+dB+0mZ3eKk5XRTDJPYyVnA2E3zN3aDpYaXd HA90G5gZ2EnDXzYh0Si+gPQMrB59eVE5lJ9wzzmJ/N+WkPxDU1rtmLpbu5IFn4WyVd Q9ujGN8mZcONepMgn1wA82TlLR98pDFNVVI4MxEwbABlnoPr5XnULp0L1kaiBMgxMc wLb0Q428RsFpP3EX8mUVeI8pa6cdgjvRVQ65jMY3RwzqZOrYp2EeVb80ZzLbyZlFlW NTt0sN1uEvNFxAz5aIG4ZpQS4JM1MRbpZ1vUBcTUfhXNDgkmF7SoHmOHuLlSsRrD/B pBlJcku6n89ZQ==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.76]) by opfedar07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4FZy6Y3jy9z5vNF; Wed, 5 May 2021 15:21:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices: Network Slice vs. VPN(+)
Thread-Index: AQJuQMvxEqWR2+WD9JT4Yd2Nm/Io2amm2QZQgAAHgWA=
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 13:21:56 +0000
Message-ID: <19104_1620220917_60929BF5_19104_345_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353770D6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <12419_1620218338_609291E2_12419_14_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933035376F08@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <00c801d741ae$9d3f5f50$d7be1df0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <00c801d741ae$9d3f5f50$d7be1df0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353770D6OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BASsa3rl_VShvUg1ICNkXjx7wQY>
Subject: Re: [Teas] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices: Network Slice vs. VPN(+)
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: Wed, 05 May 2021 13:22:14 -0000

Re-,

I agree with the scope but my comment is actually not to dig into more technical realization details or call for favorite options to implement a slice (all that is deployment-specific in my mind). The comment is to clarify the recurrent “misunderstanding” that a slice is a VPN (or a VPN+).

I’m confident this message can be conveyed in one short sentence.

Cheers,
Med

De : Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Adrian Farrel
Envoyé : mercredi 5 mai 2021 15:00
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>; teas@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Teas] draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices: Network Slice vs. VPN(+)

Hi Med,

I’m currently working up some text to provide a definition of a network slice service and to clarify the endpoint definitions.

This text will be based on material that was on the list some while back.

I don’t think this document should dig too deep into VPN+ or ACTN. An enhanced VPN is not identical to a slice, and an CAN VN is not identical to a slice. However, ACTN and VPN+ both provide ways to realise/deliver network slices. I think that applicability statements should explain what can and can’t be done using those technologies, while this document should just note that they are possible architectural approaches.

There are, of course, very many ways to achieve network slicing dependent on the underlying technology. We need to be careful about this document:
-          Blessing any one approach
-          Trying to catalogue all possible approaches.
Other documents can try to establish consensus for particular approaches.

Best,
Adrian

From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>
Sent: 05 May 2021 13:39
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices: Network Slice vs. VPN(+)

Adrian,

I wonder whether you are planning to add some text to include the clarification discussed below.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

De : Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Envoyé : mercredi 3 mars 2021 14:28
À : adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Objet : [Teas] Network Slice vs. VPN(+) RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Hi Adrian, all,

Picking this item from the message below as I think this is a point that is worth to be clarified and discussed in the framework/definition document. We need to explain the differences between the two concepts. There are some “hints” in the framework I-D, but we need to be explicit.

VPN(+) is no more than an IETF technology to implement a network slice. As such, a network slice can be implemented without relying upon a VPN/VPN+. That’s deployment-specific. An example of possible implementations (with IETF technologies) would be to define PDBs + SFCs or running a dedicated MT-IGP instance (with optimized tweaking such as exclude links exposing long delays) + resource-based access, and so on.

Ah, let’s not forget that a network slice as defined in the definition I-D is not only about connectivity.

BTW, we do still have some inconsistencies between the documents:

  *   The definition I-D acks that an IETF network slice is not only about connectivity.
  *   The framework I-D seems to be more connectivity-centric.

We need to fix this as well.

Cheers,
Med

De : Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Adrian Farrel
Envoyé : jeudi 25 février 2021 11:52
À : 'Young Lee' <younglee.tx@gmail.com<mailto:younglee.tx@gmail.com>>; 'Luis M. Contreras' <contreras.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:contreras.ietf@gmail.com>>
Cc : 'Joel M. Halpern' <jmh@joelhalpern.com<mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>; 'Eric Gray' <ewgray2k@gmail.com<mailto:ewgray2k@gmail.com>>; 'John E Drake' <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)' <reza.rokui@nokia.com<mailto:reza.rokui@nokia.com>>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>
Objet : Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

[...]

But my opinion of all of this is coloured by thinking about enhanced VPNs (VPN+) [3] and IETF network slices as the same thing.

[...]

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ibycGzi5cxJUJSvRxm9OsQdDqn8/
[2] RFC 4026
[3] draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.