Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sat, 27 February 2021 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 833433A1260 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:21:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.087 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 EPWeWOEFGrhS for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (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 406F43A125E for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id t25so7606917pga.2 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:21:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ce3rik1s6XUg9pOM9MTgjll20CL0TAnsnufANbMRGCM=; b=VKcGecq47DF3tAWtntDrxYQ5ELtrb/Vc5xBf1cB+nmmeL3QpOWfoWWbJ5ichiXLuFy 8erNejCKTjtqYoiXruuul3uW3TMlbcxuYwEcXCzAv8SeKzo/1MHFBRFDKW0krIdRy751 TmTY9PJLiqC5tmK9jt8hv87gxrvYTEROdTp6l0hpdt+MvHcPzoakdlnFPi+Cu0pW3SNu kRTYQV0s/CqBcyFc5COKRu43tlcQtNHrdr3CqC8s89lVrAu3CV92YfCNaA6AC0L2AQvL bdBIYTdlrkfY9DBVK7YCccUdev1jLsubyhODFSE3O4YBnJVLwKxdCc+XOr1a46TIK1RI gFbQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ce3rik1s6XUg9pOM9MTgjll20CL0TAnsnufANbMRGCM=; b=oDbCpHYdyS1xaLxHJ307ztYibAKr7ZUE+RdxoY5WIg+vo1eOUdxGS3DukGkuTgK34Y QIVUZoYUbUajQNbFKsd4bYmATf5YTwiBLrd0RVspZNiEeZ/+O5kMg3UjMy6tJUrvxaSB 9Tul9o+XS80a2ReAsqac/jr7H/79fh/RCrwhkLA84dcCXlKZWVApWJIzrC5qmHa6cG+j h6sacd3+5O/62LWKu7ZxNB1t+w0OeEPq5jhwVco9aQJ+TNTZ4KkoefERJO8/oP/C9uAO mxyan+bAjg7TwkKnMfVn2jrxtm9pdIdtCUG1Pcx7mTG9a3AnPsAi+HWPtjGP9q2oeB+X MxpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531A53q33CImRHh/5AzUCdRZrDaLxg3eqEC3pxxu+youwG3IJqmw nd5E43t5l0or8WzXKGSNRrIgIAq2HYz8baZX4Ms=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxfANwycDfINZq6UwP2shnhF879Pk38G5wVAAQPadGCHXb2mmMbdVNnRzfghBaDTw85gEeHuZ8hWAxeMnpNmc=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:154e:: with SMTP id 14mr5949057pgv.18.1614406901607; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:21:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cc3949a4-1e60-7f77-45bd-2470be67d9d5@joelhalpern.com> <28233_1613491513_602BED39_28233_126_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF830@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1bf03e82-3734-885a-7047-cacf5c63d9cc@joelhalpern.com> <8211_1613493543_602BF527_8211_334_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF95E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <cde51de3-4533-9acd-a654-59a1dc9f195b@joelhalpern.com> <11878_1613494720_602BF9C0_11878_194_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF9FC@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <MN2PR05MB6623B0D3F5EEECFB3CE3FA8BC7809@MN2PR05MB6623.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <71F75531-DE7E-419E-890D-A5AB6D5F4D8F@nokia.com> <27179_1614103167_6035427F_27179_485_2_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315D83ED@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <54DAE6D4-7435-4E1A-9538-51F2ED35B132@gmail.com> <CAE4dcxnhjszy7OMD-JusSnDBg2oR7Buo4XKO6gXk1-DrQc2FsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE4dcxmeSLLaqa2Q7VTF=EJZXiyMV6hft2pCMSASAWb+N6PmVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGHSPWNmr3RQrSGsbsEvyGoLqtY1eqPQ=uOv=oDdQFNz3_VLiA@mail.gmail.com> <069101d70b64$3d32bf10$b7983d30$@olddog.co.uk> <81cdb36e29e64fd79bafeb578926e6a8@huawei.com> <CABNhwV2ZVT47m17KARJDjXzr232bs5srp2KdD7njmgTPw0=8BQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb9cd6F7GGq7Pw-jPpxzwQtTE7M_DY0oQ83mmENoEHkTFw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr2Fb9cd6F7GGq7Pw-jPpxzwQtTE7M_DY0oQ83mmENoEHkTFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 01:21:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3Dz86VkePniMGmF6vOvu63VEN9J-izHZ__=qn97cqzdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shunsuke Homma <shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>, "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>, Young Lee <younglee.tx@gmail.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e4b13e05bc4b6503"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/IInEpw5XnKgLukt8_pedijulmFk>
Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
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: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 06:21:46 -0000

I agree that the PE / CE nomenclature can be used for any scenario where
their is a customer handoff “demarcation” and only in those cases can apply
the network slicing endpoint concept.

Access - wireline/wireless
Wireline
MPLS/SR core VPN overlay - typical PE-CE demark

MPLS/SR inter-as provider handoffs

Wireless - RAN xHaul - 3GPP gateway to UE - fixed or mobile wireless 4G/5G
-  UE to Gateway is the handoff point

OTN-
OTN GMPLS/MPLS-TP packet core - typically that is the operators
infrastructure and so no customer handoff.

Data Center-
Data Center - typically no customer handoff
Typical DC flavors -
CLOS architecture BGP only DC
NVO3 - leaf/spine - vxlan/nvgre/geneve

Cloud - IAAS infrastructure as a service so no handoff

Content provider- no handoff

Web or content hosting - also no handoff paid for service offering

So in summary the only two scenarios where you have a customer handoff is
the operator access layer wireline and wireless above.

So I think the PE / CE nomenclature fits the bill even with the network
slicing paradigm shift.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:59 PM Shunsuke Homma <
shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm wondering if CE/PE can cover all cases.
>
> For example, can SFC CF/SFF (ref. RFC 7665) or Geneve tunnel endpoint/NVE
> (ref. RFC8926)  put the internal of a provider network be an endpoint of
> IETF network slice? And if so, can we call them CE or PE?
>
> Regards,
>
> Shunsuke
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 9:43 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This is an interesting discussion.
>>
>> I understand their is a paradigm shift with Enhanced VPN  network slicing
>> framework, however I think as John and Eric stated and I agree with their
>> proposed update that “CE” replace “Network slice endpoint” and PE replace
>> “Network Slice Realization Endpoint”.
>>
>> From an industry  perspective from an operators point of view,  I can see
>> that maybe the Network slicing paradigm shift is being driven by 5G which
>> has its key constructs of XHaul front back and mid haul vRAN and the mobile
>> handset UE 3GPP user data plane and how much the CE is now aware of the
>> underlay.
>>
>> As Adrian pointed out the CE based VPN versus PE based VPNs and the trade
>> off for operators with CE based VPNs and how much knowledge are operators
>> willing to give their customers about the underlay.
>>
>> As we all know that even though 5G is the industry driver of network
>> slicing, the framework of network slicing as far as degree of isolation and
>> steering is all based on the very overlay VPN concept now enhanced VPN+ to
>> provide an improved user or SLA experience.   So the concept of network
>> slicing  underpinned of overlay VPN with underlay resources and steering
>> can be used for any use case with requirements of a higher grade SLA and
>> not just 5G , such as DETNET or any content provider video streaming
>> service offering or any service requiring a higher degree of isolation.
>>
>> Their are definitely trade off from an economics and value added service
>> and ROI perspective  for CE versus PE based VPNs.
>>
>> Another point noted in this thread which I think is important and that is
>> “confusion” related to changing the historical PE / CE terminology.
>>
>> That being said I do agree with John and Eric on their proposed change.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 2:14 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed good discussion about the terms, and thanks to Adrian for the
>>> explanation and summary of the PE-based and CE-based VPNs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the two figures provided in [1], the realization of IETF network
>>> slice in both the service layer and the tunnel layer are the same, the only
>>> difference is the position the NSE represents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus I also support the proposal of using the well-known terms CE/PE to
>>> describe the endpoints of IETF network slice.  This could help to reduce
>>> the possible confusions caused by using one term to represent different
>>> positions. This could also help to understand the mapping from IETF network
>>> slice requirements to its realization, which could be based on the
>>> architecture and technologies described in the enhanced VPN draft [3].
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Jie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Adrian Farrel
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:52 PM
>>> *To:* 'Young Lee' <younglee.tx@gmail.com>om>; 'Luis M. Contreras' <
>>> contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* 'Joel M. Halpern' <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>; teas@ietf.org; 'Eric
>>> Gray' <ewgray2k@gmail.com>om>; 'John E Drake' <jdrake=
>>> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>gt;; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)' <
>>> reza.rokui@nokia.com>gt;; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good thread, and really good to see the debate on the WG list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m piling in in response to Young, mainly because that’s the email I
>>> happen to have open. But also because the perspective of Young and Luis
>>> should be valuable to us in this context.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I think that the usage of “CE” and “PE” has a long history in
>>> packet networks, I don’t believe the concepts are firmly linked only to
>>> packet. They are pretty much what they call themselves: the PE is at the
>>> edge of the “provider” == “underlay” network, and the CE is at the edge of
>>> the “consumer” == “overlay” network.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I find that, as the discussion continues, we are still missing a really
>>> clear figure to help us talk about what we are describing. But Reza’s [1]
>>> is a much better start than anything previous. Here I see the classic
>>> distinction between a CE-based VPN and a PE-based VPN [2], but we have to
>>> ask ourselves carefully whether we **really** want the CE-based
>>> approach in our network slicing:
>>>
>>> -          What are the considerations for how much knowledge of the
>>> underlay network has to be shared to the CE?
>>>
>>> -          What are the considerations for how an underlay
>>> distinguishes CE-originated slicing traffic?
>>>
>>> These are pretty much the same questions that CE-based VPNs have to
>>> answer. Of course, the concept of a “provider-managed CE” muddies these
>>> waters somewhat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Conversely, the port-based PE-based VPN has none of these problems, but
>>> does have to agree on the “Access Connection” encoding, and that is either
>>> payload-sensitive (like in PWE3) or technology-aware (like in L3VPN).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But my opinion of all of this is coloured by thinking about enhanced
>>> VPNs (VPN+) [3] and IETF network slices as the same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also think that Luis’ point about contiguous or stitched segments is
>>> important. There are, I think, two cases to be considered:
>>>
>>>    1. The multi-domain IETF network slice. Here the problem is very
>>>    much the same as the multi-AS L3VPN. We have to consider how the “service
>>>    request” is mapped from one domain to another. But it may help to recall
>>>    that, for all our dreaming, end-to-end multi-AS MPLS-TE tunnels are not
>>>    much of a thing: domains don’t like sharing information about or control of
>>>    their network resources. Thus the “E-NNI” between slice domains may be as
>>>    much of a service interface as the “UNI” between consumer and provider.
>>>    2. The 5G architecture considers stitching slices from different
>>>    technology networks to provide an end-to-end slice. From a consumer’s point
>>>    of view, this is exactly what happens, but it is not clear to me whether
>>>    this is really what happens in a deployment. Surely there is aggregation as
>>>    we go down the technology layers and into the “transport” networks. That
>>>    is, there may be very, very many micro slices in the RAN, but as this moves
>>>    onto the IP transport, it is likely that the slicing is aggregated. That
>>>    means that the stitching of slices actually follows a hierarchical model
>>>    with recursion. The interface between slice domains is the “UNI”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Net-net, I like John’s original proposal. I hope we can take that as our
>>> base point and factor in further discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ibycGzi5cxJUJSvRxm9OsQdDqn8/
>>>
>>> [2] RFC 4026
>>>
>>> [3] draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Young Lee
>>> *Sent:* 24 February 2021 10:22
>>> *To:* Luis M. Contreras <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com>om>;
>>> teas@ietf.org; Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>om>; John E Drake <
>>> jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>gt;; Joel M. Halpern <
>>> jmh@joelhalpern.com>gt;; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is an interesting discussion. I am now in the mobile side and
>>> reconginize that there are a number of scenarios that may need transport
>>> network slices (which is now called IETF network slices). For instance,
>>> possibly slices may be needed in the fronthaul, midhaul and backhaul as
>>> well as within DC networks that host the functions. Other than backhaul
>>> networks, the terms CE and PE may not be adequate because for the
>>> aforementioned transport networks except the backhaul, CE and PE
>>> terminology would not easily apply. For each of the aforementioned
>>> transport subnetworks, I think using slice endpoints makes more sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, I agree with Luis on this point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My two cents,
>>>
>>> Young
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2021년 2월 24일 (수) 오후 7:00, Luis M. Contreras <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>님이
>>> 작성:
>>>
>>> Thanks Med and Joel for the answers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Noting what you said, and assuming that we are covering not only IP/MPLS
>>> technologies, probably we need to associate the same idea of CE and PE to
>>> technologies where those roles are not commonly associated, such as OTN,
>>> DWDM or wireless / microwave, since all of them can be potential targets of
>>> the IETF Network Slicing realization. Then, if we follow this same
>>> rationale and finally the WG decides to go in this direction, I guess we
>>> need to span the CE and PE conception also to those, maybe explaining this
>>> in the definitions draft. Am I right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Med, when I was referring to IETF Network Slice of technology X or Y I
>>> was thinking on the realization. So my point here is that in case you have
>>> an IETF Network Slice let's say realized as IP/MPLS, and another one let's
>>> say realized on OTN or DWDM, where the IP/MPLS slice is supported by the
>>> OTN/DWDM slice, can we consider that the CE is IP/MPLS and the PE is
>>> OTN/DWDM? It sounds strange to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Luis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El mié, 24 feb 2021 a las 7:16, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> escribió:
>>>
>>> Hi Luis,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, this is all about recursion, service decomposition and
>>> manipulating customer/provider ROLES. In all cases, there are reference
>>> points delimiting the scope of the slice from both the customer view (we
>>> call them, customer edges) and provider view (provider edges).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing prevents that at the realization stage, two PEs can’t be
>>> connected. I’m thinking about the example where inter-AS VPN can be used to
>>> implement an IETF network slice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, can you please clarify what do you mean by a “IETF Network Slice
>>> of technology X or Y” as slice is technology-agnostic? Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Med
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *De :* Luis M. Contreras [mailto:contreras.ietf@gmail.com]
>>> *Envoyé :* mardi 23 février 2021 23:46
>>> *À :* Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>
>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>; Rokui,
>>> Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com>om>; John E Drake <jdrake=
>>> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>gt;; teas@ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern <
>>> jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>>> *Objet :* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the CE / PE discussion, I have doubts if this would apply to
>>> scenarios where we could have stitching of IETF Network Slices or in
>>> scenarios where an IETF Network Slice of technology X is supported on  IETF
>>> Network Slice of technology Y. While end-point can work in all the cases, I
>>> think that CE / PE don't become naturally applicable in all cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Respect to the discussion on IETF Network Slice Service, I think it is
>>> redundant since we are talking of consumer/customer and provider in the
>>> context of  IETF Network Slice, so being "Service" redundant there.
>>> Probably adds more confusion than clarification.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Luis
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Teas mailing list
>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>
>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>> Spring, MD
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> Teas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD