Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Thu, 24 February 2022 19:40 UTC
Return-Path: <vishnupavan@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 0D9F13A0EEE for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:40:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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_HI=-5, 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 M4jlf8YGokJa for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:40:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 1D8903A0EFA for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id d62so3977837iog.13 for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:40:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ISqoLcfLgq135aBneIkvYFbsphbHaX3SIVq8TrJp20c=; b=ZzOadOtfV6Ny9RET2ifCrk/6HsT+DTGoLSZj6TBInZhavBZd8wQHJxHZNPEJa3VjfO iJh9hhnk+AIlPrJWvCEFYUCDZFSKeAshZlQspBWyr9liX/iBr50MKZmoJu5GVpWw7LGw ah+k9w+vB4zjHZaEGNfFk0HJHuBrxTZFzJPEyaDJCKKVEKdhSrmirZE7IteMTh35T+4B yGu7nA+/mtHFI0YGATIchgy6XbpczDUSEgLN2Pp79Li5fJNlTK4izeyBsbOnqGF7/9be VSQsgLzW9ZF/3n07Qh3B9CGE3u7fBKvLgjB52CWr6ICg8f3+gjEtNYyaXsDRybHNt0zt YEXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ISqoLcfLgq135aBneIkvYFbsphbHaX3SIVq8TrJp20c=; b=kEX0IF7itaSCrpRfBHZ5HS/myAb9gYcNxZIuldg6xZbTF9p4UKHBGg/zuD6Q33CcCa gyR+47zbDc0TtZZdaAPuoj8icBv1mMOsHaDsaxYln2WiQBcpxRLY/q7/k4JOpsXG7xlP 001WKTUXyayTkWq/yI0c0LF9igijpQMysHGdnta2iBsWEcjebkhSoIHGmbeb9dD8K6sG 3L+dAKGKa85GoPzg80nBVU1JKNArqnvOl7d/x+pIFHmpkaHEWI5hzMTxv9mQzXZ0ZK9R m8cE9dzORHYBNwMxpSYtmVYMaPX3c61YyCc45tW05oenfrJOHE3nZ8hmmRFBXoABiuhr hI5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531U22bkglrDWtFW0+wXhXmNi+EEQlhMLIto2/tLoHake5zs7GR4 by6DICHdEc5+wy7HSrp7ZiiZQcgepGNj9eens/J9n0F0LBM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7NGMOShEkDZz78fJVKO0DtGE0whqmB2jrQoSxJCRfJ1jo5uN3FQwEQ80VUZM0X8a+V/AC4EhcNLN8LAuRyzI=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:6f02:0:b0:30d:8948:eb2c with SMTP id x2-20020a026f02000000b0030d8948eb2cmr3250705jab.7.1645731622069; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:40:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f658e053a826479bbb51fcf3a0d38ae5@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <f658e053a826479bbb51fcf3a0d38ae5@huawei.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 13:40:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTvH9Pawyzy3Y=xjv4kFAVn0noheSAwSX8prBFyUfq8OLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000baaa9505d8c8c063"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/HrcVZ3OQens1YJMrDo7EQl6G_y8>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
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: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 19:40:34 -0000
Bo, Hi! I hope my previous email (addressed to you) would have helped clarify the questions on "service mapping". Please see inline (prefixed [Vishnu]) for point responses to your latest email. Regards, - Pavan (as co-author) On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:04 PM Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Joel, > > Thank you for your reply. In my opinion, what you're saying is different > from the reply of Pavan about aggregating multiple NS services. > [Vishnu] I'm in complete agreement with Joel's responses (I don't see how any of my responses contradict what he said). > Your view is: NS (n:1) -> slice flow aggregate (SFA) (n:1) > -->NRP > Section 5.3 (from Pavan): NS -> VPN-> SFA -->NRP > [Vishnu] You seem to have made some incorrect inferences from Section 5.3 and I hope the previous responses would have helped clarify this. Section 5.3 does discuss multiple examples of how existing techniques for steering service traffic onto underlay paths (TE tunnel / SR policy) can be used. These underlay paths may carry traffic associated with multiple Slice-Flow Aggregates. > My understanding, and Med also pointed out: NS (n:1) -> VPN (n:1) -> > TE-topology/TE-tunnel/SR-policy/NRP etc. > > And the document also says: > The mechanisms used by the controller to determine the mapping of one or > more IETF network slice to a Slice-Flow Aggregate are outside the scope of > this document. > > Therefore, slice flow aggregate does not appear to be a necessary for NS > realization. As the draft is intended as a general solution document, I > think the SFA is not needed, and it could cause some misunderstanding. > > Thanks, > Bo > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > > 发送时间: 2022年2月24日 10:10 > > 收件人: Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram > > <vishnupavan@gmail.com> > > 抄送: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org> > > 主题: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08 > > > > I am not understanding your concern Wubo. Apologies. > > Please allow me to explain where it seems I am missing, and maybe you can > > clarify. > > > > We refer to the construct in teh draft as a slice flow aggregate so as to > > emphasis and remind all readers that this component can carry multiple > > external slices. > > > > Having said that, as a deployment option, it is always possible for an > operator > > to use one slice flow aggregate for each external network slice (of > whatever > > kind). While I am concerned about the scaling of such an approach, it is > > clearly permitted and supported by the approach describe in the draft. > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > On 2/23/2022 9:02 PM, Wubo (lana) wrote: > > > Hi Pavan, > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. Please see inline for my further comments. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bo > > > > > > *发件人:*Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com] > > > *发送时间:*2022年2月23日22:29 > > > *收件人:*Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com> > > > *抄送:*Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>; TEAS > > WG > > > Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org > > > *主题:*Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08 > > > > > > Bo, > > > > > > Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB).. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -Pavan (on behalf of the authors) > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:39 AM Wubo (lana) > > > <lana.wubo=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org > > > <mailto:40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I have read the draft and have some questions with the text and > terms. > > > > > > 1. This document seems only define SFA (slice-flow aggregation) > > > based mapping solution, that is, slice services mapping to SFAs, > and > > > SFAs to NRP(Network Resource Partition)s. > > > If this draft is supposed to be a generic slicing realization > > > document, I think, it should allow more options. For example, the > > > slice services could be mapped to VPNs, and > > > VPNs mapped to underlying resources with method described in > > > draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang. > > > > > > [VPB] Please refer to section 5.3 > > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08 > > > #section-5.3 > > > > > < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-best > > bar-teas-ns-packet-08*section-5.3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RKgzM9K5I6Crs9-9Ok > > xWcIvs0atMYM1O1zZWrRa009HkrnmqRqcVdrJg4EU6Aib-$>). > > > It does note that the usual techniques for steering service traffic > > > onto paths are applicable -- the example that you cite is certainly > > > allowed. We can add a reference to > > > draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang in this section and make it > > > explicit. > > > > > > */[Bo Wu] Thanks for the clarification, but my concerns are not just > > > about Section 5.3. Taking Section 3.3 as an example, Slice-Flow > > > Aggregation Mapping, there are also multiple sections titled with SFA. > > > I hope that the name can be changed to "slice service mapping” or > > > “slice service flow mapping" and the options described in section 5.3 > > > can also be reflected in those sections. Otherwise, as Med suggested, > > > maybe the draft name could be changed to “Realizing Network Slices in > > > IP/MPLS Networks supporting SFA”./* > > > > > > > > > 2. This draft refers to draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but > > > the following definition are not consistent: > > > 1) SFA is not defined in draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but > > > is seems relevant from the definition. And I can't find NRP Policy > > > selection Criteria in the model definition. > > > Slice-Flow Aggregate: a collection of packets that match an NRP > > > Policy selection criteria and are given the same forwarding > > > treatment ; > > > > > > 2) draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy defines Slice Selector, but > > > apart from Slice Selector, this draft also defines FAS and FASL. It > > > is recommended that the terms be consistent. > > > FAS: Flow Aggregate Selector; FASL: Flow Aggregate Selector Label. > > > > > > [VPB] The last two comments above are for the NRP policy data model > > > draft (Thanks for bringing it up!). We agree that the NRP policy data > > > model draft needs to be updated to be in sync with the current > > > terminology used in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet. This should get done > > > in the next few days. But please note that the NRP policy data model > > > draft is not the one that is currently being polled for adoption. > > > > > > */[Bo Wu] I'm sorry my question is not clear. Let me rephrase it. As > > > described in the document, the SFA is maintained by the controller, > > > which means that the data plane within the device is not SFA aware. > > > Then could you explain the reason of defining FAS and FASL? And what > > > are the differences between them and Network Resource Partition Data > > > Plane Selector? /* > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Bo > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > > > 发件人: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org > > > <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>] 代表Lou Berger > > > > 发送时间: 2022年2月18日21:28 > > > > 收件人: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>> > > > > 抄送: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org > > > <mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>; > > > > draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org > > > <mailto:draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org> > > > > 主题: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08 > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/ > > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/> > > > > > > > > Please note that IPR has been disclosed on this document: > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-bestbar-teas-n > > > > > < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-bestbar-teas- > > n> > > > > s-packet > > > > > > > > Please voice your support or objections to adoption on the list > by the > > end of the > > > > day (any time zone) March 4. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Lou (as Co-chair) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Teas mailing list > > > > Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Teas mailing list > > > Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Teas mailing list > > > Teas@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >
- [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-pa… Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Chandrasekar Ramachandran
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Srihari Sangli
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Colby Barth
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… peng.shaofu
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Wen, Bin
- Re: [Teas] [E] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-te… Jalil, Luay
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… chen.ran
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… chen.ran
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: WG adoption poll: d… Rokui, Reza
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Raveendra Torvi
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Huzhibo
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Loa Andersson
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Abhishek Deshmukh
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- [Teas] Fwd: WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-n… Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)