Re: [Teas] ACTN update

Daniele Ceccarelli <> Thu, 17 November 2016 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB1E129982 for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:19:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UCgntdbrrf-0 for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:19:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22F4412943C for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:19:52 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-857ff700000062bf-12-582de6b5d8bb
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 04.BC.25279.5B6ED285; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:19:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:19:48 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-ericsson-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=N0H+NhxqEjSp6+Jm6XMmxde0htzJ8Rp9HSbybC3E8DY=; b=VNHTbT2iUmH/TvBb4F2JtLin2z2VcKRFMDahrkJ8tnt9KK+Jgg8JdzMXq1GfT0aj/0I6YaP6N0c65fC2uUr11L/ITnLKU8Ft4Hv2xrBXT50T+ltMuTrQa2tb+YQaF8X9ZGpL48R6xdbF3KHmZCt7hLYQEdt/S+jp0Jkc6S6/BMs=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.721.4; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:19:45 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0734.007; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:19:44 +0000
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <>
To: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <>, "TEAS WG (" <>
Thread-Topic: ACTN update
Thread-Index: AdJAeoeb3oMDwnZ0TveBS2SD5cPsIAASyoHgAAukeUA=
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:19:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: [2001:67c:370:144:8da:bfee:2c29:30ae]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM2PR07MB0995; 7:/nynQZqcnCv4nY8/qr0zoDp63mIkWHkrarpH3mdxgTpL4WcFECQwtcZOpYEigU29drc4y97uwIKyCl3tw1biOKfuU5ScNFDbrMc6ZjJ0HoaUnpddcBi74l9GjdILSgX+YCjAC3yL/KOuXdvWwjjuQyuoI3R7K0veW6fymXFzfA4tLppVt0m92boeJED5U/NUtmB0EPHpbwHT0O5jMTszrO+13GsKzSQmWeRccFkEtgxp3UN/YIhHE5Al0uch6rJpdbOyMKRkpbyaCKZpFTVlAZPdr3vFkOTjgkKpXPHKRss6rzC8Uv1Y2vmjXjG+b1/KlLGC6Z1+kLnYHivQDfx6cCTGBzieuFo3duC4rmezkiw=
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1d99560e-727d-4dae-9932-08d40f0dec93
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:AM2PR07MB0995;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(37575265505322)(271806183753584)(82608151540597)(21748063052155)(17755550239193);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6060326)(6040281)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041223)(6061324); SRVR:AM2PR07MB0995; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM2PR07MB0995;
x-forefront-prvs: 01294F875B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(7916002)(199003)(53754006)(377454003)(189002)(106356001)(74316002)(81166006)(81156014)(86362001)(3660700001)(10710500007)(105586002)(3280700002)(5660300001)(7696004)(15650500001)(76576001)(2906002)(606004)(221733001)(9686002)(7846002)(2420400007)(33656002)(92566002)(102836003)(229853002)(7116003)(31430400001)(8676002)(76176999)(5890100001)(77096005)(122556002)(7736002)(87936001)(561944003)(8936002)(5001770100001)(68736007)(2900100001)(54356999)(790700001)(7110500001)(6116002)(6506003)(50986999)(189998001)(2950100002)(107886002)(3480700004)(97736004)(101416001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM2PR07MB0995;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM2PR07MB0994A1E745CDFC54987DA18DF0B10AM2PR07MB0994eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Nov 2016 17:19:44.3309 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM2PR07MB0995
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA02SbUhTURjHOffezetwdFrqHl/KGgSlzSwlx4jo7YOQhdGHhhS18qLmnLK7 xJcQISy0BhpmTYy0zHJpQoZNUJbTpiVlvpWZY4ommmmoodNwlTsT/PY7/5fz8BwOS0tqBIFs slbP6bRqjUwoYoyq1xHyxgm5KuLWjFKx3BOqyHeamcNUTFXVMhVjH+ql4qh40cEETpOcwen2 HrooShq584NK77uW2dJVLcxDZk0h8mYBR4H5toEqRCJWgl8gcHSbvMihE0G/zUitpRhsoGFo Uk2MEgqMHRZPxYagfdnOFCKWFWIljFtj1wq++Ar0WSxea7wFAxjnnAKiB8CX0hKKsBLa5796 BuyEKUudOyPG52C14htN7q9HYDQUuUPe+DzM//3sDiHsD0vva906jaUwNP6QIvtgqGrupgn7 wdSYy5O/BPX5Zk8mGuaGG5m1AYAraDC57F7EOAkrz0bpdV4stXr0FHiy2CYgnAPmBYOQlPsQ rBb3CIkRDE1TA4gYcwJoetDhbkgwB0/r8hF5i0Cw9xd4OBgmh1sERWhX2YYtCKfBxOCIm8V4 M7wzjjNED4fBuyVCwmFQXTlNE5bDfZeV2ahXIC8T8uM5nk9N3B8ZzumSL/N8mjZcy+lfov8f qPXVH7kZPZ8+YkWYRTIfcbp+j0oiUGfwWalWBCwt8xWHjshVEnGCOiub06Vd0F3VcLwVBbGM TCo+UOM4K8GJaj2XwnHpnG7dpVjvwDxUGTCcMCEdWzhRO3c8JSrUujUpKnvUP6eh09dWH+sM qXzcfGzJP66m/FFP0PfqoHunZq+XH0UCp8Jh+tBwM3FbcdUOaUh0PGUvyhw7s6nrdO6Mz4pv QQKlnXWJfmt3Lw7EDuRalGHNMZ9+pmxv+dV7o0z0UdFQ97Y10tFme0PND8kYPkm9L5TW8ep/ 4qGF6zwDAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] ACTN update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:19:56 -0000

In line


From: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) []
Sent: giovedì 17 novembre 2016 21:10
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <>om>; TEAS WG ( <>
Subject: RE: ACTN update

Hi all,

I think ongoing discussions in OPSAWG and L2SM show that a "service orchestrator" implementing the L3SM model (or e.g. the L2SM model) may not necessarily directly talk to a domain controller.

DC> May not or may, this is just an example.  The goal of the slides is totally different and is to show the relationship between the orchestrator and the MDSC, since orchestrator is a well known term and the MDSC is not. There was a misunderstanding in thinking that the relationship is 1:1 while the MDSC is just a subset of the orchestrator functionalities. I hope you'll have the chance to read the minutes of the meeting when available.

There can be much more complex architectures, e.g., if the service provider and network operator are not the same organization.
DC> This is orthogonal with respect to the slides. If the service provide and the network operator are not in the same organization (very common situation) the "service" box will be inside the orchestrator and the MDSC will be out, what's the problem?

Also, the L3SM is a customer-facing model and the system may deal with customer "SLAs". Therefore, I am not sure if the term "TE" is really useful at the level of the L3SM model. Also, I believe the SLAs for a customer may not necessarily directly relate to TE. So, I find the notion "L3SM + TE" quite confusing.
DC> Again, that's just an example to say that it is L3SM plus constraints and not just "I want connectivity between X and Y". If you don't like "L3SM+TE" we can find a better one. If you have a suggestion it's more than welcome.

In summary, I don't think that this slide deck clarifies the role of ACTN in a real service provisioning architecture, e.g., for IP services.

And since there is already terminology discussion in OPSAWG and L2SM/L3SM, I find it not useful to add further ACTN-specific terms. This just increases the confusion that already exists.

Maybe TEAS should back of a bit and work with the other WGs on terminology alignment?
DC> if you have a proposal I'm more than happy to consider it



From: Teas [] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:32 AM
To: TEAS WG (<>) <<>>
Subject: [Teas] ACTN update

Dear WG and ACTNers,

Please find attached some slides trying to clarify terminology, roles and functionalities in ACTN (in line with the discussion we had at the mic during the TEAS session). It provides an architectural explanation and a possible workflow description trying to see if it fits with the architecture.

My proposal is to:

1.       Add a section in the framework document to explain the relationship and the split of roles between PNC, MDSC and existing components like orchestrator and domain controller.

2.       Add a section to the "Applicability of YANG models for ACTN" to explain how this impacts the definition of the MPI and what is missing (i.e. TE-Service model). This will have impacts also on the PCEP applicability.

3.    Write a new document defining service mapping model that provides mappings across LxSM and TE-service model and that can be extend to support different service models (L3VPN/L2VPN/L1VPN, VTS, Transport Connectivity service, etc). Dhruv, Young and I are already working on this.

Opinions? Thoughts?