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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

I think Med captures the point.

What do we slice? We slice the underlay, and that runs from PE to PE.

What does the consumer see? They see a service, and that runs from CE to CE.

And yes, the connection between CE and PE (the access circuit) is a factor.

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: 04 March 2021 11:06
To: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; Shunsuke Homma <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Re-, 

I think here where we need to invoke the new term proposed by John/Eric: IETF Network Slice Service. 

The IETF Network Slice Service is always between CEs.

Other than the managed CE case, the scope of the IETF Network Slice is what Joel said with an emphasis on the adequate configuration of the access circuit. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 4 mars 2021 01:42
> À : Shunsuke Homma <[e-mail]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint
> in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
> 
> I can't speak for Med, but in my opinion, the right scope for the
> IETF Network Slice is PE to PE.  Information about the access circuit
> will need to be provided, but it is not, as I understand it,under the
> control of the IETF Network Slice Controller.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 3/3/2021 7:25 PM, Shunsuke Homma wrote:
> > Hi Med,
> >
> > I think it's an important discussion. I'd like to clarify the range
> > which should be managed as an IETF network slice. In my
> understanding,
> > CE will be a slice consumer's end-host or an endpoint of an
> opposite
> > network slice, and it will be generally out of control of IETF
> network
> > slice. As you described, there may be cases where CE makes marking
> on
> > traffic and PE allocate it to appropriate slice based on the mark,
> but
> > I think the arrangement between CE and PE will be done by
> > controller/orchestrator higher than IETF Network Slice Controller.
> In
> > other words, a necessary policy is set to PE from higher
> > controller/orchestrator, and IETF network slice can work
> independently
> > of whether the CE is slice-aware or not.
> >
> > So my question is which is appropriate as the range of IETF network
> slice.
> >
> > 1. it is always between CE and CE,
> > 2. it is always between PE and PE,
> > 3. it is basically from PE to PE, and sometimes between CE and CE
> > (e.g., in case that CE is slice-aware,)
> >
> > # From a network operator or slice provider aspect, I'd like to
> know
> > whether SLA/SLO between CE and PE must  be assured.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Shunsuke
> >
> > 2021年3月3日(水) 22:57 <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
> >
> >     Re-,____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     Thanks Adrian for raising this point.____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     My take is that we can’t discard it by design. Take the example
> of
> >     stitched slices where packets are marked by the CE + that
> marking is
> >     trusted by the PE to graft them to the appropriate network
> slice.
> >     Likewise, a hierarchical design where an aggregate slice trusts
> the
> >     marking of the upper slice to identify how to map between the
> >     levels. Such trust may be justified under specific deployment
> >     contexts. ____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     Cheers,____
> >
> >     Med____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     *De :* Teas [mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>] *De la part de* Adrian Farrel
> >     *Envoyé :* jeudi 25 février 2021 11:52
> >     *À :* 'Young Lee' <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Luis M. Contreras'
> >     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     *Cc :* 'Joel M. Halpern' <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> >     'Eric Gray' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> 'John
> >     E Drake' <jdrake=[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia -
> >     CA/Ottawa)' <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> >     BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >     *Objet :* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
> >     draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     [...] ____
> >
> >     ...but we have to ask ourselves carefully whether we **really**
> want
> >     the CE-based approach in our network slicing:____
> >
> >     __-__What are the considerations for how much knowledge of the
> >     underlay network has to be shared to the CE?____
> >
> >     __-__What are the considerations for how an underlay
> distinguishes
> >     CE-originated slicing traffic?____
> >
> >     These are pretty much the same questions that CE-based VPNs
> have to
> >     answer. Of course, the concept of a “provider-managed CE”
> muddies
> >     these waters somewhat.____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     Conversely, the port-based PE-based VPN has none of these
> problems,
> >     but does have to agree on the “Access Connection” encoding, and
> that
> >     is either payload-sensitive (like in PWE3) or technology-aware
> (like
> >     in L3VPN).____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >     [...] ____
> >
> >     __ __
> >
> >
> >
> _____________________________________________________________________
> _
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
> >     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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >     <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.

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas