Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 - Mike question
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 27 April 2020 13:27 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 52C3F3A0B0F for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 Bh3dYlTD4m2J for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 1A2653A0AF1 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499lvX5sZQz6GDHv; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1587994072; bh=0cv7Xhw48MtRjq/F0L7SO1OKir8mZXcvrZiJl/ut4pM=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kuBxG95EfRdlorAkNcEaNBHTExYGW3ZmjNFY3wDe9jRpFAl8dg582GaKXBBu2N/H+ qqj+GjTt2hVxccfU6HNd6C67Tk9OItvxhmla2idGXderTevgdlaSjDLWWRVAMb3rbu yPQdst+1X8gF/GQRkJzRERfnELBzeg6ZWkfGmqmw=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 499lvX177zz6G7Lj; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
References: <0a36dbf4fee9468cae14390bff6287ae@huawei.com> <E61B7668-6A2A-4F3A-90B2-5165B7E63896@nokia.com> <62a5f1b8-24e2-01c8-046e-ab8f75e03a13@joelhalpern.com> <FE52192B-33EA-4FDF-BBC8-050EE6243924@nokia.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <e207d172-cad3-b23f-f7fa-f1112f3208c8@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 09:27:51 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FE52192B-33EA-4FDF-BBC8-050EE6243924@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/GAKdM0iOuDKIOkhxGcJGnungo9o>
Subject: Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 - Mike question
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, 27 Apr 2020 13:28:00 -0000
What you describe here seems aligned with what I understand. When I read your response to Sue, it seemed to say something different. Sorry I misunderstood you. Yours, Joel On 4/27/2020 8:43 AM, Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: > Joel, > > If assume with “customer”, you mean the owner of the transport slice. > > Let me clarify. Transport slice is meaningful in context of an e2e > network slice. The e2e network slice has an owner which requested the > creation of the e2e network slice. > > For example, customer Uber asks the operator for an e2e network slice > for service “autonomous driving”. In addition of creating Other Slices > (OS), the Operator eventually creates one or many Transport Slices to > satisfy the original e2e network slice. > > In this case, customer Uber is the owner of the e2e network slice (which > in turn means he is the owner of the many transport slices) in the network. > > E2E network Slice Orchestrator and Transpot slice Controller provide the > full automation on both e2e network slice and transport slices. > > I think the above clarification is aligned with you comment. > > Cheers, > > Reza > > On 2020-04-26, 12:54 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > Reza, I am pretty sure that the custoemr of the Transport Network > Slice > > is not actually the orchestrator. Yes, the orchestrator gave the > > orders. But those orders were to meet someone else needs for the > slice. > > Pretending that the end-to-end slice is the customer of the > transport > > slice seems to be counter-productive. > > Yours, > > Joel > > On 4/26/2020 12:36 AM, Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: > > > Hi Sue, > > > > > > In addition of Bo’s answers, see my comments in line. > > > > > > Reza > > > > > > *From: *"Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com> > > > *Date: *Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:32 AM > > > *To: *Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Reza Rokui > <reza.rokui@nokia.com>, > > > 'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, 'Teas-ns-dt' > > > <teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org> > > > *Subject: *Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 - > Mike question > > > > > > Hi Sue, > > > > > > Many thanks for the detailed comments. > > > > > > Let me answer first and see if my co-author has anything to add. > > > > > > Please see inline below. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bo > > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > > 发件人: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] 代表Susan Hares > > > 发送时间: 2020年4月24日2:02 > > > 收件人: 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)' <reza.rokui@nokia.com>; > 'Dhruv > > > Dhody' <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>; 'Teas-ns-dt' > > > <teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org>; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org> > > > 主题: Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 - Mike > question > > > > > > Reza: > > > > > > Your answer to my request for clarification of your slides seems > to have > > > skipped a step. > > > > > > I asked for clarification, and you stated you prepared a clear > set of > > > slides > > > > > > (smile) > > > > > > A clarification question indicates your slides were unclear to me. > > > > > > Perhaps you would kindly explain a few things to me. > > > > > > Sue > > > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > Question 1) Your slides stated > > > > > > Customer level > > > > > > | > > > > > > Higher level systems > > > > > > | (your model is here) > > > > > > Transport slide controller > > > > > > | > > > > > > Network controllers > > > > > > /[Bo] This figure is from the Transport slice definition draft, > where > > > the customer is the user who uses the slice./ > > > > > > On slide 2, > > > > > > a) who is the customer? > > > > > > [Bo]The customer here refers to the Higher level systems. > > > > > > [Reza] The customer of the “Transport slices” is whoever wants to > create > > > the connectivity across transport network as part of e2e network > slice. > > > As an example, in 5G, the customer is called “5G network slice > > > Orchestrator”. > > > > > > Or for use-case of NFV connectivity between data centers, the higher > > > level system might be the OSS system or a customer portal. > > > > > > b) who is running the higher level systems? > > > > > > [Reza] It depends on the Transport Slice use-case. In 5G network > > > slicing, the high system is orchestrator runs by network slice > operator > > > (or customer himself). > > > > > > It all depends of the use-case. The details is out of scope of > our draft. > > > > > > c) who is running transport slide controller > > > > > > /[Bo] As defined in the definition draft, it is quite possible > that the > > > higher level systems and the TSC are not in the same management > domain./ > > > > > > [Reza] Note that “Transport Slice Controller” is a FUNCTIONAL block. > > > Depends on the use-case and operator’s desire, It might be part of > > > “Network Controller”. It might also be a separate box owns by > network > > > operator. > > > > > > It is possible that the owner of the “Transport Slice Controller” > and > > > “Network Controllers” as not the same network operator. > > > > > > Your text says in section 3, page > > > > > > "The intention of the transport slice model is to allow the > consumers, > > > > > > e.g. A higher level management system, to request and monitor > > > > > > transport slices. In particular, the model allows consumers to > > > > > > operate in an abstract, technology-agnostic manner, with > > > > > > implementation details hidden. " > > > > > > Is the end-customer directly running the system? > > > > > > [Reza] Referring to Figure-4 of the definition draft below, the > > > end-customer is the whoever owns the “E2E Network slice”. We call > him > > > the Customer (or Tenant). > > > > > > For example in 5G network slicing, an E2E network slice is > created for > > > customer “Uber” for service type “Autonomous Driving.” > > > > > > In this case the end-customer is “Uber” which can run and manage > its own > > > e2e network slice if they have agreement with network slice and > > > transport slice operators. > > > > > > <======================= E2E NS ======================> > > > > > > <-OS1-> <-TS1-> <-TS2-> <-OS2-> ... <-TSn-> <-OSm-> > > > > > > |------------------------------------------------------| > > > > > > | .--. .--. .--. | > > > > > > | ( )--. ( )--. ( )--. | > > > > > > | .' ' .' ' .' ' | > > > > > > [EU-x] | ( Network-1 ) ( Network-2 ) ... ( Network-p ) > |[EU-y] > > > > > > | `-----------' `-----------' `----------' | > > > > > > | | > > > > > > | Operator-z | > > > > > > |------------------------------------------------------| > > > > > > Legend: > > > > > > E2E NS: End-to-end network slice > > > > > > TSn: Transport Slice n > > > > > > OSm: Other Slice m > > > > > > EU-x: End User-x > > > > > > EU-y: End User-y > > > > > > Is this directly linked to the certified paying customer? > > > > > > Or is the customer really the person on the inside of the 5G > provider > > > configuring it. > > > > > > [Reza] Referring to the example above, if with “paying customer” you > > > means customer “Uber”, the answer is YES. But since Uber can sell > the > > > usage of this network slice to hundreds of drivers, if with “paying > > > customers” you means these drivers, the answer is NO. > > > > > > /[Bo] No to the above questions, The TSC is unaware of slice > customers. > > > And what I want to highlight is that the consumer in this draft > refers > > > to the higher level management system./// > > > > > > Question-2) If you are using the TS-Endpoint as an entry point > (slide > > > 4) How is this conceptually different that the site endpoints > defined by > > > > > > RFC8466 (section 5.5), RFC8049 (section 6.5 and 6.6)? > > > > > > In the L2SM and l3SM models, you sites with: > > > > > > a) end-to-end p2p connectivity > > > > > > b) ~logical LANs (multiple connections through a single transport)? > > > > > > c) multiple VPNs (translated to multiple Transport slides > connectivity) > > > > > > /[Bo] / > > > > > > /In L2SM and L3SM, 'site' is defined to configure links between > CE and PE. / > > > > > > /In the context of transport slices, it is assumed that the > connection > > > between the customer site and transport network has been > established, / > > > > > > /and multiple slices can share the connection./ > > > > > > // > > > > > > /Additionally, the higher level system may use different endpoints, > > > which may be the termination point on the CE side or the TP on > the PE > > > side./// > > > > > > [Reza] Endpoints of Transport slice are the abstract entities. They > > > could be the application software for example or a physical node, > the > > > logical node or interface or any other component which needs > connectivity. > > > > > > To realize the transport slice you can use for example L2SM or L3SM > > > between multiple Sites. For example if you want to create a > Transport > > > Slice between a VNF and application, you can realize it using > L2SM or > > > L3SM across IP network between multipole Sites which might be > different > > > from Transport Slice Endpoints. > > > > > > +------+ > > > > > > |CE TS1EP--+ > > > > > > +------+ | > > > > > > | > > > > > > | +--------------+ > > > > > > +------+ +-----+ | > > > > > > |CE TS2EP | PE | > > > > > > | +----------------+ | > > > > > > | TS3EP | | > > > > > > +------+ +-------------+ > > > > > > +------+ > > > > > > |CE +--------+ > > > > > > +------+ | > > > > > > | > > > > > > | +----------------+ > > > > > > +------+ +-TS1EP | > > > > > > |CE | TS2EP PE | > > > > > > | +----------+ | > > > > > > | | TS3EP | > > > > > > +------+ +-------------- + > > > > > > Question-3: Slide 15 - TS-NBI as Augmenting network model (RFC8345) > > > > > > The slide makes it appear as you model TS-NBI as a network layer > connection. > > > > > > Is this correct? > > > > > > /[Bo] No, the authors prefer /TS-NBI as a customer-view > connection for > > > Higher level systems. > > > > > > If you are modeling as network connection, Why? > > > > > > If you are modeling this as a customer level, then why is this > slide > > > (which you claim is "clear") is modeling this as dependent on a link > > > rather than connecting as a customer connection from an upper > logical > > > layer (connecting multiple connections) to one of possible links. > > > > > > If you are modeling this as a customer level slides, 13 and 14 also > > > seems to misaligned. You are on top of these models utilizing what > > > portions you wish. > > > > > > /[Bo] This draft has been discussed several times at DT. During the > > > discussion, some members suggested to reuse the existing IETF > topology > > > definition since the definition draft defines TS as a logical > topology > > > connecting a number of endpoints./// > > > > > > [Reza] During multiple NSDT meetings, a few people asked why > authors of > > > NBI draft did not augment Network model yang (RFC 8345) . Slice > 15 is > > > included as completeness to outline the reasons and depict the > potential > > > augmentation. Note that authors desired is not to use this model. We > > > stated the reason in Slide 15. > > > > > > Question 4: Are these models ephemeral? > > > > > > /[Bo] No, the slice model is an abstraction of resources that are > > > dedicated allocated or shared in the Underlay layer. For example, a > > > Transport slice could be the aggregation of interfaces, VPNs, and > > > tunnels from entry to exit endpoint./ > > > > > > Again - thank you for answering these questions. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:reza.rokui@nokia.com] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 1:01 PM > > > > > > To: Dhruv Dhody; Susan Hares; Teas-ns-dt; TEAS WG (teas@ietf.org > > > <mailto:teas@ietf.org>) > > > > > > Cc: Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 - Mike > question > > > > > > Thanks Sue for you comment and Dhruv for your response. We > prepared a > > > good set of slides to capture the rational behind our model and > why we > > > did not use VN or RFC 8345 models although we used the design > concept > > > from both yang models. > > > > > > As Dhruv pointed out, we add them to appendix since they are very > > > important aspects. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Reza > > > > > > On 2020-04-23, 12:22 PM, "Teas on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" > > > <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of dhruv.ietf@gmail.com > > > > <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sue, > > > > > > Thanks for your email. Yes, our work for TS-NBI is closer to the > > > > > > customer service models and in fact uses the same design > philosophy by > > > > > > creating an independent model with a customer view (of the > slice) > > > > > > rather than the network view. The network view would be > useful for the > > > > > > slice realization by the TS-controller as described in the > framework > > > > > > draft. > > > > > > It would be good idea to capture this discussion in the > Appendix of > > > > > > our I-D. Further, there are some technical challenges such > as modeling > > > > > > TS-endoint as an augmentation of a termination point in > RFC8345; our > > > > > > preference is to maintain TS-endpoint to be a logical > identifier with > > > > > > either CE-side details or PE-side details or both. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Dhruv > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:16 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com > > > <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bo Wu, Dhruv, Reza, and Liuyan: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your presentation in TEAS on the > > > draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01. I had hoped to ask this > > > question on the mike: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “Would you provide more details on why you felt the base > model > > > (RFC8345) was not appropriate to utilize? “ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that you are proposing a customer level > model to > > > monitor and set-up the traffic slicing? RFC8345 provides a > base model > > > with a customer level. The models L2SM and L3SM provided a > customer > > > level for general VPNs. You seem to be providing the equivalent > for a > > > traffic slicing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are looking to utilize the base model then providing a > > > customer level model is a good idea. It is much cleaner than > mixing it > > > with the network layer. When network slicing was starting its > work, I > > > prepared this suggestion as part of the first BOF. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you do me a favor in your presentation of “customer > > > level”, would you careful distinguish between the following > customer > > > levels? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > End –customer --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VPN customer (person/tools configuring) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Service > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VPN of network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Base network > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The I2RS WG (which chair) standardized RFC8345. Your > > > application was one of the ones that caused us to work through > the model > > > and the issues with yang. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m excited to see your work in TEAS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Teas mailing list > > > > > > > Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org> > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Teas mailing list > > > > > > Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org> > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Teas mailing list > > > > > > Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org> > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Teas mailing list > > > Teas@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > >
- [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 - Mi… Susan Hares
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Susan Hares
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Susan Hares
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Susan Hares
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Susan Hares
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Susan Hares
- Re: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 … Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)