Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion network slicing

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Ahah, good point Spencer.

Transit may not be good enough but we’ll look for a more appropriate term. For us in the routing area the network is what goes from layer 0 to layer 3…but there is an entire world above (and on the side).

BR/Daniele

From: Netslices [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Sent: sabato 20 maggio 2017 02:33
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
Cc: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Netslices] [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing



On May 19, 2017 16:56, "Daniele Ceccarelli" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Young, all,

i agree with your conclusion but would like to clarify one thing that IMO got lost in the discussion since its beginning.

The 3GPP definition says:
"A set of network functions and the resources for these network functions which are arranged and configured, forming a complete logical network to meet certain network characteristics."

This means that a network slice IS NOT a VPN or a TE Tunnel.
A network slice is "something" (netslices and 3GPP will define what this something is) that is composed by a "piece" in the RADIO domain, a "piece" in the CLOUD domain, a "piece" in the TRANSPORT domain, plus possible other pieces in possible other domains.

The word "transport" can be misleading here since one could think of transport technologies (e.g. WDM, OTN), but what I'm referring to as TRANSPORT DOMAIN is that part of the network that is used to carry a packet between two other domains.
In order to have a slice, that portion of the transport domain needs to be engineered, hence it is all about building a TE entity and stitching services to such entity. This is what is in the ACTN scope.

My very personal opinion is that whatever belongs to the transport domain belongs to IETF (and is already being addressed), while the rest is a dangerous duplication of concepts standardized is other SDOs...but this is another discussion that doesn't fit here.

Given that "transport" has two completely orthogonal meanings in our community now, and is already a source of confusion, if this term is not already etched in stone, if you could think of another label, that would be awesome.

Just from your description, I thought you're describing a transit operator. I'm not saying that's the right term, but I think it would confuse fewer people.

If you can think of a better term, please use it, of course.

Spencer, as *Transport* AD, but not the kind of Transport you're looking for ...