[Teas] Two more examples for draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 31 July 2022 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 C04B6C15C50D for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jul 2022 01:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.928
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.928 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sF_sBV9cOG-2 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jul 2022 01:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D13BC16ECDF for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2022 01:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 26V8AM50029729 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:10:22 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E6C4604E for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:10:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983474604B for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:10:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:10:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([88.128.88.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 26V8ALWw030613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:10:22 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <teas@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:10:21 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <0c9901d8a4b4$fb618350$f22489f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdiktPbMrusyWRcoQYGA9pFk30bq1g==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 88.128.88.120
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-27048.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.808-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--7.808-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-27048.006
X-TMASE-Result: 10--7.808400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: cPu9AiD5JXwZnuop9luYIDjNGpWCIvfTNUSduuqYHDvIgofMgahPrXqT KrT4kCRpc3LebuSG3T7Rr6pL4diplaML3v3DWTsM3nHtGkYl/Vo98wLbdeI5WFc/CedjlcvkuWe Brf0F8lSpLnDsE79B8cuHgW1QxPEaRpsoDCmkF1KHZXNSWjgdU3hejHrzFWVAoRBIy5J0l8Dv5t G5qQwjQACbBLiecFi5Z4CRvgkL6MqCuMXj+VaDNfZvT2zYoYOwEDnDEqNPduoRBtVagi8jbYpbw G9fIuITTQ5QroDJ1I9XJ6DuDcfpaCWUkRhX1GFJOYqUl58EXDO6NdkJrh18mgDVt9UpyMklbjQ2 nmm3r6ggeznBnsNrAUnNNccK+FvHs/ej5mUo2GoOOK9P8WgPzXUF9R5TWOMEmyiLZetSf8nJ4y0 wP1A6ANjQedTOgaIMoe5zfF+josbdB/CxWTRRu/558CedkGIvqcoAhihTwvjeXNwsACEp4QhcFe Jqeu7af9FPEYrVtrgCf6ioBWiB6nCbh6li8RUS
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FTvdju_t2_G4ZZnQLiE2fnfHL54>
Subject: [Teas] Two more examples for draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 08:10:30 -0000

Hi,

During the meeting at IETF-114, Lou suggested that we might make some
efforts to include a discussion of hierarchical and concatenated IETF
Network Slices within the framework draft.

We already have some text that notes that these approaches fall within the
architecture, so probably nothing new needed there. But the Appendix
provides a place to give simple examples of various deployment options
(without getting into the details of realisation).

So, here is some proposed text.

Let me know if it causes any of you a problem.

Cheers,
Adrian

====

A.5.  Hierarchical Composition of Network Slices

   As mentioned in Section 4.3, IETF Network Slices may be arranged
   hierarchically.  There is nothing special of novel about such an
   arrangement, and it models the hierarchical arrangement of services
   of virtual networks in many other environments.

   As shown in Figure 9, an Operator's Controller (NSC) that is
   requested to provide an IETF Network Slice for a customer may, in
   turn, request an IETF Network Slice from another carrier.  The
   Operator's NSC may manage and control the underlay IETF Network Slice
   by modifying the requested connectivity constructs and changing the
   SLAs.  The customer is entirely unaware of the hierarchy of slices,
   and the underlay carrier is entirely unaware of how its slice is
   being used.

   This "stacking" of IETF Network Slice constructs is no different to
   the way virtual networks may be arranged.

               --------------
              | Network      |
              | Slice        |
              | Orchestrator |
               --------------
                | IETF Network Slice
                | Service Request
                |                    Customer view
            ....|................................
               -v----------------    Operator view
              |Controller        |
              |  ------------    |
              | | IETF       |   |
              | | Network    |---|---
              | | Slice      |   |   |
              | | Controller |   |   |
              | | (NSC)      |   |   |
              |  ------------    |   |
               ------------------    |
                                     | IETF Network Slice
                                     | Service Request
                                     |
            .........................|.....................
                           ----------v-------    Carrier view
                          |Controller        |
                          |  ------------    |
                          | | IETF       |   |
                          | | Network    |   |--> Virtual Network
                          | | Slice      |   |
                          | | Controller |   |
                          | | (NSC)      |   |
                          |  ------------    |
                      ....|  | Network       |............
                          |  | Configuration |   Underlay Network
                          |  v               |
                          |  ------------    |
                          | | Network    |   |
                          | | Controller |   |
                          | | (NC)       |   |
                          |  ------------    |
                           ------------------
                            | Device Configuration
                            v

     Figure 9: Example Hierarchical Arrangement of IETF Network Slices

   In this case, the network hierarchy may also be provided to bridge
   connectivity between networks as shown in Figure 10.  Here, the an
   IETF Network Slice may be requested of the lower layer network to
   provide the desired connectivity constructs to supplement the
   connectivity in the higher layer network where this connectivity may
   be presented as a virtual link.

                  CE1                                       CE2
                   |                                         |
                   |                                         |
                  _|_________________________________________|_
                 ( :                                         : )
                (  :..............             ..............:  )
                 (_______________:_____________:_______________)
                               __|_____________|__
                              (  :             :  )
                             (   :.............:   )
                              (___________________)

        Figure 10: Example Hierarchical Arrangement of IETF Network
                       Slices to Bridge Connectivity

A.6.  Horizontal Composition of Network Slices

   It may be that end-to-end connectivity is achieved using a set of
   cooperating networks as described in Section 4.3.  For example, there
   may be multiple inter-connected networks that provide the required
   connectivity as shown in Figure 11.  The networks may utilize
   different technologies and may be under separate administrative
   control.

                  CE1                                       CE2
                   |                                         |
                  SDP1                                      SDP2
                   |                                         |
                  _|____       ______       ______       ____|_
                 (      )     (      )     (      )     (      )
                (        )---(        )---(        )---(        )
                 (______)     (______)     (______)     (______)

        Figure 11: Example Customer View of Inter-connected Networks
                      Provide End-to-End Connectivity

   In this scenario, the customer (represented by CE1 and CE2) may
   request an IETF Network Slice service connecting the CEs.  The
   customer considers the SDPs at the edge (shown as SDP1 and SDP2 in
   Figure 11) and might not be aware of how the end-to-end connectivity
   is composed.

   However, because the various networks may be of different
   technologies and under separate administrative control, the networks
   are sliced individually and coordination is necessary to deliver the
   desired connectivity.  The network to network interfaces (NNIs) are
   present as SDPs for the IETF Network Slices in each network so that
   each network is individually sliced.  In the example in Figure 11,
   this is illustrated as network 1 (N/w1) being sliced between SDP1 and
   SDPX, N/w2 being sliced between SDPY and SDPU, etc.  The coordination
   activity involves binding the SDPs, and hence the connectivity
   constructs, to achieve end-to-end connectivity.  In this way, simple
   and complex end-to-end connectivity can be achieved with a variety of
   connectivity constructs in the IETF Network Slices of different
   networks "stitched" together.

              CE1                                                CE2
               |                                                  |
              SDP1                                               SDP2
               |                                                  |
              _|____          ______          ______          ____|_
             (      ) SDPX   (      ) SDPU   (      ) SDPS   (      )
            (  N/w1  )------(  N/w2  )------(  N/w3  )------(  N/w4  )
             (______)   SDPY (______)   SDPV (______)   SDPT (______)


      Figure 12: Example Delivery of An End-to-End IETF Network Slice
                       with Inter- connected Networks

   The controller/coordinator relationship is shown in Figure 13.

          --------------
         | Network      |
         | Slice        |
         | Orchestrator |
          --------------
           | IETF Network Slice
           | Service Request
           |                    Customer view
       ....|................................
          -v----------------    Coordinator view
         |Coordinator       |
         |                  |
          ------------------
           |             |_________________
           |                               |
           |                               |
       ....|.......................    ....|.....................
          -v--------------                -v--------------
         |Controller1     | Operator1    |Controller2     | Operator2
         |  ------------  |              |  ------------  |
         | | IETF       | |              | | IETF       | |
         | | Network    | |              | | Network    | |
         | | Slice      | |              | | Slice      | |
         | | Controller | |              | | Controller | |
         | | (NSC)      | |              | | (NSC)      | |
         |  ------------  |              |  ------------  |
     ....|  | Network     |............  |  | Network     |............
         |  | Config      | Underlay1    |  | Config      | Underlay2
         |  v             |              |  v             |
         |  ------------  |              |  ------------  |
         | | Network    | |              | | Network    | |
         | | Controller | |              | | Controller | |
         | | (NC)       | |              | | (NC)       | |
         |  ------------  |              |  ------------  |
          ----------------                ----------------
           | Device Configuration
           v

     Figure 13: Example Relationship of IETF Network Slice Coordination