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

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Thu, 04 March 2021 10:54 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 89E883A18ED for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 02:54:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.117
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.117 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_MSPIKE_H3=-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 A1of3pK_HwLp for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 02:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 282573A18EB for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 02:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DrnnR4C5xz1ycm; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:54:51 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1614855291; bh=umu7VLOV96hG9h5fqDhWh++qNV8VCwE00OJ9x7TbOpc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=vb/2BtRvpyi14TS+rMqbYW6GUHpv+YHF7jJcU77k8hdfT1GYveS/lZsLO9w5otFR2 /rrRXjsCfwerka2mLhBuPkym24Xxy1LnyN0/MD0Zg17sd47Dwonx6Cr+7ELJfSZLRM RjjOQpT2JyyTAu7oHn/ETWYZccdvZPbFqEgqez+Z3cTvmuHAI+/Wha6y0TxXitbyNC E9cckVwGRL3UrkhOdODLry3P8VREnTLr5HpXVf2hEeFW8L4xl1zAlmCObsf3UfPi9N uFjOH/xeFPCCm+Cw1D39brgfhs60bD/EN7N2NBcMyLTahXGXlXWrm8GSQiPQAW8nzu PSY91zMdV4lTg==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.45]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DrnnR3LRwzDq8L; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:54:51 +0100 (CET)
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Shunsuke Homma <s.homma0718@gmail.com>
CC: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
Thread-Index: AQHXEIzopxdkWIGu7UGdA5Yzjr4C4apzpTqw
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:54:50 +0000
Message-ID: <889_1614855291_6040BC7B_889_30_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F5699@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAGU6MPfSDGGx3aRO6Vi1vFpS2k9yOM3ACsUb=jVPQB6-aehWgA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGU6MPfSDGGx3aRO6Vi1vFpS2k9yOM3ACsUb=jVPQB6-aehWgA@mail.gmail.com>
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_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F5699OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/C9KxCCka4IwJcvkJJsDPJ4fMjQw>
Subject: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: 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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 10:54:56 -0000

Hi Sunshuke,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Shunsuke Homma [mailto:s.homma0718@gmail.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 4 mars 2021 01:25
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc : adrian@olddog.co.uk; teas@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

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,

[Med] I’m not sure about this one. For the cases I have in mind, the endpoint is separate from the CE.

and it will be generally out of control of IETF network slice.

[Med] Agree with your comment about the control of the endpoint, but there is the “managed CE” case. For such a case, the operator can have some control on the CE.

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,
[Med] This visibility is needed at the service level independently whether the CE is slice-aware or not.

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 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>:
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:teas-bounces@ietf.org<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: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 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
Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
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.