Re: [Teas] SFC and slicing

Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com> Mon, 24 May 2021 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <i_bryskin@yahoo.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 9A6823A2B18 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 May 2021 07:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=yahoo.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 d3HRWozIuxfl for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 May 2021 07:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonic307-9.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (sonic307-9.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [66.163.190.32]) (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 EFFF83A2B13 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 May 2021 07:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1621867488; bh=KybXM+2IEh4Qenbw54RgXigpGpMhlgm5NxUqdCxKSV8=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=kE8q+i+j6f/1dA2NMRtYzF5eoDXqTXMp/MshoCFm/9/5Gg+BYpbHvJxvO+Fl8jTMwIM6rYG1Zg0cUufpPY2rFFQ/ycOzhbtJvKyRGNE0Y9WRGiUQ611NoU2G3Fi3bO6fiDt9r0lwbswxoF7ELWqSrZcyf9miXMniMOFh+aMLQXz4qgcquDfxDSve4XtLzKfD+Q+EecBKrR3Y+UFTNTKFhJvw5oTtmWhb9ji5d0wRgsoeDTNp89z3LrQsd4cO90rHyxF/nPMdhJupSAcGlScL+irBWWBPKlZEd2v76S4dQ6Pr9ZPI8pWFGePBdYn3i+ky4elhaUl4A9MdKDs7QC3DRg==
X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1621867488; bh=mOatKsY7YfJLuIkakBAII9HeuOYC552w4p8IEiWDODw=; h=X-Sonic-MF:Date:From:To:Subject:From:Subject; b=rgork2zN5yfPUWog/bJkExuDqUN52+oNkdWYR9E4XLbp8ut6GH4dNv01yGX2s9htCj953e6iL/CI2hh7Q23ImmTw10Lqd4xcLhbPsR8R/q1hv2QDn2EJwfxAZsmIh14cInAZDJhc9k1BPhIEAPusAQPC0Q35Jn5e0nrpEr61eIjNh8glMyYXoXcz9dmXr4SWoo8y1GYYdWALFLtPN7/YtMBmVUky1BbhA7RXbNFtM4kIF7Az9M+yvWdNuQZtGivVE0lKWoCBtnpUOHGVHgvxvNaHKo9tLMsVeHKNwEcZl+JMK22FHU+78eIPGvr7h9q8FNpqWqAi5/ft9UxNt0xn3w==
X-YMail-OSG: MxH0CFYVM1muWeluwJJ5L4z7kS3AZQ.xqLNCJHRT8V4nUUqiuNPVgsuCoXY5HpO TRnhC4jN.jqGDdPWId2xmvJO5Xz1tNQrpt4nSt8ySbtB8SOUxYeaUmcNxEtbvTvPvZby6cTUBypl enmYPXR7HkWdthr_56u6LGe7p9a08PwKQEzgTMdHUi47Jj8tC3quQt3hwfhnQ59_Ytq4LF2Y8LJk 1yYaYhf3Z0R4ETkHelrYXkeaGB1aFExJ9T4QJHSHRKx6AehJUHGMqsotSaKAmityYADf3B24ncNT urZAR1.CYaEc5aq22CaEgO1Bc7cG_0gvAF_mWYc80gjeBUAoI5swoPf.G9tZe1Je_gB0QaNfpWsA 2IFLWROtGVYLSctrobvBRBI.mr7W6stBRMdJ14jeJaVNKL8wrSCfQikU4BySVLHQBdqSAUAaE2Dd wOA6xR8m6Iz1dN1K0XVu7..Orj4Ar2JopXv.F4psNxLZkQ8d36ixPM.TjyvqEBdRSJOv9KfQm.tK OtduAsQrIB6hggG.WDjUKUYK31lkChrkoh.1ngGdmBcxbAIv7dqUU0xRPKR6RDjHjXgZAM5tOoR4 7ZqoRNsXWvUciwNKRNzXPJisNCFIxyWKXqB6hZc8ALPl8h8PU0cAkDFbkO9YqmrCurAYU5h25spp cV5CZ5.LaMBhQVeKzCHnJlt1jsOyOdyaLF52L2dbUFQFOfU2TxKuzWWyaBYTmljldOiSht..aX1d 2p06n9BNAg0wiDSyyybmH9R9FRmsOLpLcitq80ttpTRpzsh34vsDdtiHF7PN1jdDcQHCNl.NYLor _IEqE8DFzRAWIiW3pNXuRx3GEpVX4XcBmlDAiPEP3gKBlsriODErdTn1xK_mzj3tUemRohdAe.Gh xDs2hWQISE_ZwvTnbMswarA1ClduNKFlLTFDf5NsfT3ZPZN9VUEQ9me45_CdASOuEx2RC07es6G9 hqMQx2BcA0MHbWUvkGMvzO5qM5KFY8eIlxwxdds0wAMj2oBdouPajxspUyJClZMHLp51.eMZyFDv dtE9F8Jbxwx4ncadkOQ08pnmUlQSR_.SHovpQzfAVik6ZaPy3RwVsIZtjvc9Osq.6lsiBJ.wl1tJ dnkPCTLqyYthSQbVJvShueuCbRn3rjmYK7umGYeH5wVj1dqo3xcIGi5JnaA7_Wq9xKynvpXr1z9A kTJy772XDaV37NUvtNnmhC0yKpQKuTL2RcCoKsqLuaSbVugj52qsA.LQGqtLScu5cqZy5JzlLu8P RN.pQv9tUemryHTO_SMIQSPW9owR7I52NcP6JQ.lLRaxyAjjVn8R36G2gULnwKsFYppvQmmsZX5d IfTd6iDVVNhHvTXvZuXp4h4eFANbpyhQX1rHx584MNsQu_6J6TO3JA_YrU8IZk.TM9AMkbPyBnGJ aZvJxhbFaAkaNEz1aDhaqjC_lxmH7l6n8ZGvwfR0ypdocS7MNnUXVh2jKzTDRm07IR_LTARMRUNJ XEBVeK9SENO88wCK8yn25.Uj4PCo.i7hg_95DTXlv.9rGIXfRCDpXE49pGxUSw9ekgx8t.AKqO1x q6yTXVvXqNBuekyPmqZCKqdbNmGYj.Hv7dhJaEUatS5CeG2jWCUlvb8ahL_VeJTbqoeaIWSzxGC9 _O6rBEtH4ljVbZ2YoKbtsQMSsa_F.sveTVSeiF4YA7.DB38Sae9jg9mUeT1dwkvCGt31lcjOGoLb OfsX1ZZkkZxmzGs4Z3js4lPzDDLZ.OgLGe2iQ3bxESW1zjlcXJFDa2FEpqbPwWP6JiS1dr75WgHB aZ.vE7xvD19sgfDM5vxtZdjjEOFSjf5QkDpwISVt21coLGZ5N8.1k_OByrlGYGTrWtx0bCcigLny zuHimg3C6C7kjtKenKk1EPhRzlumtET4AvpOcG0TvIMLABIWdjncz2DYuBpYb2h1nZjQynuE2hOA pDmNoz_m0GMvELpm1A3xsoU7ScWs8Jdg8.1F45ijtq4pQckTD8ksLXYRqEiSKUe6QSjE8PC52hTZ nmtfiq3t8NwRlB.YA8Ja_IENLV.63fOFobqXVWsskPx7UC1o6qpLPNJIfSHl25wjAW0JdMeJr5vy POCpZwD5i2qTIyoByN0X9xp4sKRKFDM8_rGtULZAqV2XWuCqBuRadJyFRI5MQpKyzx3kgLSUgAdQ jo5oHXfn.Mzg_kLx6FImFnCrOcLsOO_XIV5cXSBFjDnl3JGjBQA81EHyTma.ynYnewOnodyT0Mnk onP77ANtQ9AYfc6O4sfYAfBzOWeLB5ODi0vI77ofP2Alj22nUzMpUG1yjAGeHnnTJ73QbRoP3Az0 6zxJ9J.p25PhEB0Hx7oorE3MwwDNuoCh3DRvBszSCbubSMKUHVfJaEU6ebRmAzmikEY8MrWo8vA0 QAnugJFs._9bm5BIN7PwZ23eIYzg1eZIjQrdnLDAdI36DL93QNINnWgHgDb9ThDwgAw--
X-Sonic-MF: <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic307.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Mon, 24 May 2021 14:44:48 +0000
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 14:44:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
To: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Message-ID: <2071994812.1094145.1621867486287@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <011101d7509b$2fa58a90$8ef09fb0$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <006e01d74ffa$aec567b0$0c503710$@olddog.co.uk> <MN2PR15MB3454AF3E8DF6856B28F642F6A0269@MN2PR15MB3454.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <011101d7509b$2fa58a90$8ef09fb0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1094144_309063697.1621867486283"
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.18368 YMailNorrin
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/DWYbF45H2AgtIu32JtTKEtCyGjo>
Subject: Re: [Teas] SFC and slicing
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: Mon, 24 May 2021 14:44:55 -0000

 Right. I suppose we need to hear from operators. Specifically, focusing on the delay SLO I'd like to ask:1. Is it possible that requested SFs in an SFC need to be time synchronized in a client specific way?2. If e2e delays D, how the network is supposed to spend the delay budget between SFs in the requested SFC:a) arbitrarily;b) evenly.c) in proportion specified by the client

Cheers,Igor

    On Monday, May 24, 2021, 08:49:31 AM EDT, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:  
 
 #yiv8485934124 #yiv8485934124 -- _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv8485934124 #yiv8485934124 p.yiv8485934124MsoNormal, #yiv8485934124 li.yiv8485934124MsoNormal, #yiv8485934124 div.yiv8485934124MsoNormal {margin:0cm;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv8485934124 a:link, #yiv8485934124 span.yiv8485934124MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8485934124 span.yiv8485934124EmailStyle19 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv8485934124 .yiv8485934124MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv8485934124 div.yiv8485934124WordSection1 {}#yiv8485934124 
It’s an interesting question : “What would happen if the different parts of the SFC needed different SLOs?”  But that is an “if”. I wonder whether we can decide whether this is likely.

  

Consider an end-to-end flow. We can easily decide on the end-to-end SLOs. For example, there may be an end-to-end latency requirement. But it seems unlikely that there is a special latency requirement between a pair of SFs. Is there an example, where the SF-to-SF SLO needs to be specific?

  

Thanks,

Adrian

  

From: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com> 
Sent: 24 May 2021 13:22
To: teas@ietf.org; adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Teas] SFC and slicing

  

Hi Adrian, 

Thanks for giving to this some thoughts. 

I see a problem with the suggested plan if it turns out along the road that in a requested by a client SFC SF1-> SF2->...->SFn different sets  of SLOs  are required for each/some SFi->SFj links, as well as e2e across the slice. I suggested one way to address this by describing slices as SF aware abstract topologies. 

Cheers, 

Igor 

Get Outlook for Android

  

From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 1:40:11 PM
To: teas@ietf.org <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: i_bryskin@yahoo.com <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Teas] SFC and slicing 

 

Hi,

Igor raised the question of "reconciling" the IETF work on service function
chaining and network slicing.

Some of the early discussions on network slicing considered not just
connectivity resources (buffers and bandwidth), but also other resources
that might be found in the network (like storage and compute). I was one of
the people suggesting this, and I know there were others. This would
certainly go some way to bridge the gap to SFC.

However, my understanding is that the design team (and others in the WG)
wanted to push ahead with the definitions for the connectivity resources
first, and consider adding other resources later.

I think this is wise. We have taken quite a long time to get to this point
(especially if you consider the early network slicing BoF), and it is
certainly the case that the first deployment drive is for connectivity
resources. Perhaps we should sort that out first.

That said, I don't think that adding other service descriptions would be
hard. It feels like the definition of further SLOs and SLEs. 

If we want to continue this discussion, we should probably involve the SFC
working group to see how they feel about it. But anyone who is interested in
this could certainly begin work on specifying the SLOs and SLEs that they
will want to see added to the NBI.

Best,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas