Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

Tarek Saad <> Fri, 07 May 2021 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC31C3A2B7B for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MtbwREEq-Vyr for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26DFC3A2BB8 for <>; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e14so8317817ils.12 for <>; Fri, 07 May 2021 10:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language:msip_labels :mime-version; bh=gSQviD/UFZtyREJ6voH6daqBcKC/p9XWFsa52/x84xw=; b=uaiZgF17/DQt5ErEEoBQ892fEn0qIIg0pBQ1e3vKtPZKKCjMS/vrYsCUcpU0YrPqT3 NSsTNprCUBQib0eZk//aNsvrdF28rotbX6LtshZnN+5TBriMTJDwFyHRPC8LD22eAZEz mN/c6TLBV3G/FqzoPl+FCaibzVPLIqh5KtD6RTu3dEbDM7COOW9D2NzCcC0a8Q15On1x qEfCk7ozxcm5HMFoe9B5166UrsMkhdTTUPj+tyvHCHMU8t2RtXYxXXzjJDjExrlZUH/l 9mS6i0N0WiCgrjBQaqiOAhp5aBnCS8su/EOyElYro3VRGcnIYv0QLCwfAkf9Zk7Pg2rK M1MA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :msip_labels:mime-version; bh=gSQviD/UFZtyREJ6voH6daqBcKC/p9XWFsa52/x84xw=; b=ejZv4W/jAKL89rwfPZKPfsKqPbm86N2WsE1m4R2M54ZQnOj+GTnjy6YRyG1AVV+LeL 2hxQ20lLWetYyO9Zh/JnhO8WZKeZ0qVHSsQyHD6c70G6htv0GDemA9v3mFyhlKJA+JI/ Fa7mrfithEssR9P/UePzUxAhP615wgVdeftL+Inln2vWRaf6OHQ1aD38GdwowcCWvPX8 1FKzRvZn9VhkmgHAJel4xFmz87v9wmBONiMJzhg7vpedjGRUvGp1dVV1YXvLPDB6fjYQ wYGTqR8Oh74MINta20dT+yId+Af7ZYaNSUy7t7sGDiWUoEtZx645EsPUstgCfh1w3r9E FjZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532adU3Iwq5tWy8Kpg3mwk4sBgD0veIzHNTdWDb1Y4nL5iRSS6uO 6sO3dpqR22XcdjzDNIt68rk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw0B5xiRm1eRsj5W8ZvzM6tU2o2OesFfGSv2wBREqk2jtfP6+twFJm9x3EepjFUwpixDd7lfw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:e0d:: with SMTP id a13mr10406530ilk.270.1620409545310; Fri, 07 May 2021 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2603:1036:4:9e::5]) by with ESMTPSA id y25sm2534884ioj.39.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 May 2021 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <>
To: John E Drake <>, Igor Bryskin <>, Igor Bryskin <>, Loa Andersson <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Oscar González de Dios <>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
Thread-Index: AddAxWjITt1c7iy5R82GjNJUuT9irQAxff2AAAJ4G4AAAhOtgAAAQk8AACrNRYAAB4C3sAAG+MIAAAKUqoAAAg8cgAAAd+TgADOujlU=
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 17:45:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <037401d740c5$70a9cc30$51fd6490$> <> <009401d74195$41fd70a0$c5f851e0$> <9933_1620212302_60927A4E_9933_344_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933035376DFA@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <00a001d7419e$99e5a040$cdb0e0c0$> <> <> <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2021-05-06T16:56:04.0000000Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=2; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR1901MB215079D52C9CCF7851BD4464FC579DM5PR1901MB2150_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 17:47:14 -0000

Hi John/all,

>> Comments inline.  In general, much like VPNs, the customer doesn’t have visibility into the provider’s network.
[TS]: a customer may want to have a say in defining a policy on top of the route that a NS connection can take. In absence of a common language to express such (inclusion/exclusion) policy/intent, does it suffice to express this in terms of geographies (GPS locations, countries, cities, roads), srlgs (srlgs may not have global meaning), diversity needs (from other connections), etc.? Alternatively, does it help if the NBI request expresses such inclusions/exclusions policy using/referencing a “customer-centric” topology that a provider may have furnished earlier to the customer, and which the provider can readily map to their network?


On 5/6/21, 12:56 PM, "Teas" <> wrote:


Comments inline.  In general, much like VPNs, the customer doesn’t have visibility into the provider’s network.

Yours Irrespectively,


Juniper Business Use Only
From: Igor Bryskin <>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 12:39 PM
To: Igor Bryskin <>; Loa Andersson <>;;;; Oscar González de Dios <>; John E Drake <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Thanks John,

But wouldn't the client want to constrain the connectivity for a given link in the specified SFC, say, to be more stringent than end-to-end (perhaps by a separate set of SLOs)?

[JD]  I have no idea.  One of the reasons why we haven’t yet included SFCs is that we have no idea what are the requirements for it.

Also, could the client have a say on location of SFs? For example, can it instruct to avoid a country or DC?

[JD]  This is already handled with Service Level Expectations (SLEs), which have been added to the framework draft.


On Thursday, May 6, 2021, 11:48:22 AM EDT, John E Drake <<>> wrote:


Given the IETF Network Slice Service definition that Eric and I proposed, I think we could add an SFC definition to the SLO definition for each sender to a given connectivity construct.  It would indicate that a packet from that sender to each receiver would pass through the specified SFC before being received.  This is consistent with  what is described in:<;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UiAW41P7JKVUF0vjIvj-fdWXz4tdgy1TQsJvFgOakNad0SkwwCcGftg70olRfow$>.

Yours Irrespectively,


Juniper Business Use Only

From: Teas <<>> On Behalf Of Igor Bryskin
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:26 AM
To: Loa Andersson <<>>;<>;<>;<>; Oscar González de Dios <<>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Adrian,

I probably missed the discussion, but how do we reconcile  two IETF stories - network slicing and SFCs? Surely, at some point a network slice client will ask the provider not just only to deliver its traffic from A to B with delay no worse than D, but also to do something else with the data (e.g. DPI). On the other hand, when we talk about SFCs we cannot assume I think any longer the context of a physical (not sliced) network. I do not suppose we can simply mandate the SF placement at network slice end points or somewhere outside network slices - this approach would probably not scale well.

So, the question is how SFs relate to network slices, in particular, to their SLAs, SLOs and topologies?



On Thursday, May 6, 2021, 07:53:32 AM EDT, Oscar González de Dios <<>> wrote:

Hi Adrian,

        I think what is really relevant is to have a clear definition on the chosen term to avoid misunderstandings. Unfortunately today customer/consumer/client are used also in other contexts that might bring extra implications.

          Said that, I am fine with the term customer. There are still a couple of places in the document where the term "service customer" is used. Please change those to "IETF Network Slice customer" to be coherent.

        One argument in favor of the term customer is that the "IETF Network slice customer" makes use of the slice to fulfill its needs (can be carry the traffic from a to b with a set of SLOs) and manage the granted slice (that is, it can rearrange the resources it is allowed to).  The term consumer misses the management part, which is a key differentiator of a slice.

        In the definition of customer, Can we just say: " A customer may manage the granted IETF Network Slice.

        Also, I'd like to clarify between the management of the IETF Network slice that the customer can do and the management the provider can do. The customer can "play" within the allocated resources, but may have some limitations. One question, the ability to manage the slice, is part of an SLO? Or should be defined separately with a different term? It would be interesting to have the possibility to indicate what the slice customer can manage and what not...

        I support moving earlier in the document the definition of the IETF Network Slice Customer and, also, add a definition for the IETF Network Slice Provider (although only "provider" is used thought the text).

        Best Regards,


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Teas <<>> En nombre de Loa Andersson
Enviado el: jueves, 6 de mayo de 2021 9:31
Asunto: Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices


That is acceptable.

As you said it is late in the document, and really not in a definitions section. I don't know if we can we place something in Section "2.  Terms and Abbreviations", but there seems to be only abbreviations.

Your wholesale example:

I think you forget about wholesale. What do you call the school that buys food at the shop to provide to the children? Do you call the school the customer, or do you refer to the cook who buys the food as the customer? The contract is with the school, negotiated by the cook, signed by the bursar.

I think "the school! is the customer, which is OK in this context. The cook and the school kids could be viewed as consumers", one removed from the system.

It strikes me that "Customer System" and "IETF Slice" are somewhat similar, the risk is that we talk about "customer" (even if we change it), and "slice" (even though if is really "IETF Slice)",

Having said that, though it is not my task to call consensus, I think we have a enough support to use "customer".

I rest my case.


On 05/05/2021 13:05, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> We currently have (in section 5.1, which may be a bit late in the
> document)
>    Customer:  A customer is the requester of an IETF Network Slice.
>        Customers may request monitoring of SLOs.  A customer may manage
>        the IETF Network Slice service directly by interfacing with the
>        IETF NSC or indirectly through an orchestrator.
> We could add "A customer may be an entity such as an enterprise
> network or a network operator, an individual working at such an
> entity, a private individual contracting for a service, or an
> application or software component."
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From:<> <<>>
> Sent: 05 May 2021 11:58
> To:<>; 'Loa Andersson' <<>>;<>
> Subject: RE: [Teas] Moving forward with
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
> Hi all,
>> Anyone else got anything to say on the topic?
> I would simply use "customer" and make sure the definition is generic
> enough to denote a role/entity.
> Thanks.
> Cheers,
> Med
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Teas [<>] De la part de Adrian Farrel
>> Envoyé : mercredi 5 mai 2021 11:59 À : 'Loa Andersson' <<>>;
>><> Objet : Re: [Teas] Moving forward with
>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network- slices
>> Hi Loa,
>>> On customer vs. consumer Adrian says:
>>>>    c. "Consumer" vs "customer". I have made this consistent (we
>> only need to
>>>>        use one term). I selected "Customer" because that seemed
>> best, but I
>>>>        know some people prefer "consumer". Please discuss if you
>> are not
>>>>        happy.
>>> If the choice is between customer vs. consumer, I prefer customer.
>> OK. So I made an improvement, but...
>>> I don't know if it is too late to bring this up.
>> It's never too late to bring things up.
>>> But I really don't like either, normal language has a strong
>>> indication that that that a customer is a person (a person that
>> walks
>>> inte to your
>>> shop) and consumer is also a person /that eats what I bought at
>> your shop).
>> I think you forget about wholesale. What do you call the school that
>> buys food at the shop to provide to the children? Do you call the
>> school the customer, or do you refer to the cook who buys the food as
>> the customer? The contract is with the school, negotiated by the
>> cook, signed by the bursar.
>>> IETF specifies "systems", including what goes into SW and HW, but
>> we
>>> don't specify normative rules for human behavior.
>>> I don't know if we can talk about Customer System?
>> I'm afraid of this getting heavy for the reader. There are 73
>> instances of "customer" in the document, and "customer system" may
>> become tiresome to read.
>> Anyone else got anything to say on the topic?
>> Cheers,
>> Adrian
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______ _____________________________________________
> 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


Loa Andersson                        email:<>
Senior MPLS Expert                <>
Bronze Dragon Consulting            phone: +46 739 81 21 64

Teas mailing list<><;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X_3my20D0a0-O-3AGBF9WTsXoLaXi_9rJT8003XW0WCdkSUuAV5G3D-29TXGHao$>


Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

Teas mailing list<><;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X_3my20D0a0-O-3AGBF9WTsXoLaXi_9rJT8003XW0WCdkSUuAV5G3D-29TXGHao$>
Teas mailing list<><;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UiAW41P7JKVUF0vjIvj-fdWXz4tdgy1TQsJvFgOakNad0SkwwCcGftg7Jv_wONI$>