Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition and isolation
Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 09 November 2020 22:45 UTC
Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 5BB333A133D; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 14:45:55 -0800 (PST)
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, 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=gmail.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 fBGjv9lMy_Tt; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 14:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (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 215B23A14B3; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 14:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id e21so8391216pgr.11; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 14:45:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=TWhPruCPVW0f4TgvRaCnLopTdbascnEnWhorx17Z8/4=; b=e5+Xab9oZjtaQ3yDGa5ZYtoFzf6TcOW7whAqn14EU84Fpo2+ZX5zNVJZ6LVcOPimrl hhzE+N7XOw67fxaM+vm/Ig01drKlIk0Ka0dehluxJ9s0NruEfwE5FN00l+eFA6whQ2vu fiB8EWNVV+j0Xm++SpHzF/S0r2XpIlaGB1lfqmVHDtekl7jM9gTS5spsAtjuK+xiNT/A o/sMTBjWST1xzLqt7EA4uagK9hdsqD9hm1qJUPGV1IiFHGslYJDKzHh3py+tOYDa9oI4 uJObFSZRmcwfw1IaeRrxBPf36iHy5jRVVhDPGMQy+aj0fRB3Fo5EEZ/wBR+7x4XI3dfJ /zwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=TWhPruCPVW0f4TgvRaCnLopTdbascnEnWhorx17Z8/4=; b=t2cZlcvhOsl763+BZguBjfloUqO4s57TcWVedaKAdPDpA52b3Q7Y/Lq3m8OUzVRo9K l2KqD7zCIO1Kbn8yMJ4C6A+/HNtxpdS7Fq3H0h4cn3ohTUnu4fwEDOGb9vnRn8NO3qXE 5xBC0kcHv4WkUGgHzw1J6cgzo6VoicFpA0PvQbgWcm9EknlsFfcVNvyXnut5Hj0n0CUu zEbYL1LEjuCATCrBCGcE3GezVC/zh3TlUlCy/xyEd/7JH5fKCme9sAQNtH/7iwvGtVa7 p9g09/uQ7RPuKjIMzs4nAiFmaywyJRCrkJUM7iAhaF7XEeN38PtVin7A1PALNKZRaHHj bHlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530KN/xfnJ0lA2DYTBQnSZTyIbrqxSBb9xJYWLEAdBJrLywdIgYx LUEymtRWkhj+YxLkVlDvxIiaRQx5exQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAs2zWG3FFOllS7J8TFEd3OamdJhZ+kv8aFfF1coCTb62vV9n3tnncCfD0RO1MW6WVRs0eJg==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8205:0:b029:18b:3691:e447 with SMTP id k5-20020aa782050000b029018b3691e447mr15782934pfi.69.1604961952131; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 14:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z206sm12602078pfc.3.2020.11.09.14.45.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Nov 2020 14:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 14:45:44 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: teas@ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition@ietf.org
Message-ID: <45f66559-cf4b-4473-bee0-71bb1f36d395@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <059e01d6b6ce$0f74a830$2e5df890$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <059e01d6b6ce$0f74a830$2e5df890$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 45f66559-cf4b-4473-bee0-71bb1f36d395@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5fa9c69d_3f2dba31_6e9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FfMxeGRTnPhUiREwcEvROqNj44Y>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition and isolation
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, 09 Nov 2020 22:45:55 -0000
Thanks for your comments Adrian. The co-authors will review and come back to you ASAP. Cheers, Jeff On Nov 9, 2020, 11:25 AM -0800, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not sure where the right place to discuss this document is. Since it > replaces the previous terminology document, and since that was proposed for > adoption on the TEAS list, I think this is probably the right place (feel > free to redirect me). > > I'd like to focus this email just on Section 9 - the text on isolation. I > suspect that this is the largest remaining obstacle to WG adoption. > > Firstly, we have to recall that this is a terminology document, not a > broader architecture. Therefore we should aim to reduce the text to clear > and simple definitions: further text belongs in some other document such as > the framework draft or a focus-specific document that describes some facet > in detail. So I guess I agree with the Editor's statement at the top of > Section 9... > > Editor's note: This content is a work in progress. The section on > > isolation is too descriptive. > > A way to reduce this would be... > > == Section 9 == > > OLD > An IETF Network Slice consumer may request, that the IETF Network > Slice delivered to them is isolated from any other network slices of > services delivered to any other customers. It is expected that the > changes to the other network slices of services do not have any > negative impact on the delivery of the IETF Network Slice. In a more > general sense, isolation can be classified in the following ways: > > Traffic Separation: Traffic of one network slice should not be > subjected to policies and forwarding rules of other network > slices. > > Interference Avoidance: Changes in other network slices should not > impact to the SLOs of the network slice. Here the changes in > other network slice may include the changes in connectivity, > traffic volume, traffic pattern, etc. > > Service Assurance: In case service degradation is unacceptable due > to unpredictable network situations producing service degradation > (e.g., major congestion events, etc.), explicit reservation of > resources in the network maybe requested for a reduces set IETF > network slices. > NEW > An IETF Network Slice consumer may request, that the IETF Network > Slice delivered to them is isolated from any other network slices of > services delivered to any other customers. It is expected that the > changes to the other network slices of services do not have any > negative impact on the delivery of the IETF Network Slice. > END > > In making this change I'd note that while these three principles are an > important part of the discussion of isolation they are out of context here. > Traffic separation is a feature of how isolation may be achieved, but it is > not something that a consumer can or should specifically ask for: they have > no way of measuring it and, indeed, since they don't know the purpose of > policies and forwarding rules within an operator's network they shouldn't > ask for control over them. Interference avoidance is a fine goal for a > consumer to ask for, but you already have this captured in the preceding > paragraph. Service assurance seems to capture two things: that the consumer > may wish for protection of their service in the event of network failure > (that's not really an isolation thing) and that a way to protect against > failure situations is to reserve resources (that's not necessarily an > isolation thing, and is certainly a question of realisation). > > == Section 9.1 == > > I think that this section is a little over-stated. Maybe: > OLD > Isolation is an important requirement of IETF network slices for > services like critical services, emergencies, etc. A consumer may > express this request through the description of SLOs. > NEW > Isolation may be an important requirement of IETF network slices > for some critical services. A consumer may express this request as > an SLO. > END > > == Section 9.2 == > > While I think there is value in having this section to note that there is a > concept of isolation in the realisation of a network slice, I don't think > you should get into details with examples etc. If you want to talk about how > realisation of network slices works, that should be in another document. > > Thus, I think you could drop the whole of the fist paragraph: it just > duplicates some of the ideas in the second paragraph which says it more > clearly. > > Furthermore, the final paragraph in the section seems to be all about > realisation. I think you should drop it partly because it is technically > suspect (an L3VPN does not achieve traffic separation in the network, that > is exactly the point of an L3VPN), but mainly because it is a discussion of > the details and technologies of realisation. > > == Section 9.3 == > > I tend to think that there will be value in a full and careful discussion of > how IETF network slices meet the requirements of 3GPP transport slices, but > I don't think it should be in this document. Thus, I agree with the editor's > note that the section should be removed. Maybe interested parties could > start a new document "Applicability of IETF Network Slices to 3GPP Transport > Slices." > > > Thanks, > Adrian >
- [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-networ… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-ne… Stewart Bryant