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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 04 March 2021 00:42 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 39D543A0C0D for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:42:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 aP_GZKLsli36 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:42:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 4BD873A0C0C for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:42:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DrXBj5T3bz1p5m2; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:42:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1614818541; bh=sEfS8cv4RS/6l6zidz9LpEVN+5YpIMuPbiFjPjCC4Bo=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=I3SBW/reZX2KKPVMU1OqAI4Q8yn8pzX5O5cfZhy2JPR9GtIpVDEJ8KYuqaj7ewKZW yGHOt887wzxUg7W2V9fTsVriaeQsPyluorQ7eF1er4/x4DeLRzlsy+y1rbP+as8zvj wslvQcctb2xErKNy/jfFT++mGEcK9dyo1kl76u1E=
X-Quarantine-ID: <tReZbca6hzMb>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DrXBj0x7nz1ntcV; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:42:20 -0800 (PST)
To: Shunsuke Homma <s.homma0718@gmail.com>, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
References: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAGU6MPfSDGGx3aRO6Vi1vFpS2k9yOM3ACsUb=jVPQB6-aehWgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <c2811489-0b88-ad7a-4374-555e2ef3032c@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 19:42:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGU6MPfSDGGx3aRO6Vi1vFpS2k9yOM3ACsUb=jVPQB6-aehWgA@mail.gmail.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/MqyS0yzMgeOD1u1zT0JpxTdPC4I>
Subject: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: 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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 00:42:24 -0000

I can't speak for Med, but in my opinion, the right scope for the IETF 
Network Slice is PE to PE.  Information about the access circuit will 
need to be provided, but it is not, as I understand it,under the control 
of the IETF Network Slice Controller.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/3/2021 7:25 PM, Shunsuke Homma wrote:
> Hi Med,
> 
> I think it's an important discussion. I'd like to clarify the range 
> which should be managed as an IETF network slice. In my understanding, 
> CE will be a slice consumer's end-host or an endpoint of an opposite 
> network slice, and it will be generally out of control of IETF network 
> slice. As you described, there may be cases where CE makes marking on 
> traffic and PE allocate it to appropriate slice based on the mark, but I 
> think the arrangement between CE and PE will be done by 
> controller/orchestrator higher than IETF Network Slice Controller. In 
> other words, a necessary policy is set to PE from higher 
> controller/orchestrator, and IETF network slice can work independently 
> of whether the CE is slice-aware or not.
> 
> So my question is which is appropriate as the range of IETF network slice.
> 
> 1. it is always between CE and CE,
> 2. it is always between PE and PE,
> 3. it is basically from PE to PE, and sometimes between CE and CE (e.g., 
> in case that CE is slice-aware,)
> 
> # From a network operator or slice provider aspect, I'd like to know 
> whether SLA/SLO between CE and PE must  be assured.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Shunsuke
> 
> 2021年3月3日(水) 22:57 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 
> <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>:
> 
>     Re-,____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Thanks Adrian for raising this point.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     My take is that we can’t discard it by design. Take the example of
>     stitched slices where packets are marked by the CE + that marking is
>     trusted by the PE to graft them to the appropriate network slice.
>     Likewise, a hierarchical design where an aggregate slice trusts the
>     marking of the upper slice to identify how to map between the
>     levels. Such trust may be justified under specific deployment
>     contexts. ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Cheers,____
> 
>     Med____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *De :* Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org
>     <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>] *De la part de* Adrian Farrel
>     *Envoyé :* jeudi 25 février 2021 11:52
>     *À :* 'Young Lee' <younglee.tx@gmail.com
>     <mailto:younglee.tx@gmail.com>>; 'Luis M. Contreras'
>     <contreras.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:contreras.ietf@gmail.com>>
>     *Cc :* 'Joel M. Halpern' <jmh@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>; teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>;
>     'Eric Gray' <ewgray2k@gmail.com <mailto:ewgray2k@gmail.com>>; 'John
>     E Drake' <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia -
>     CA/Ottawa)' <reza.rokui@nokia.com <mailto:reza.rokui@nokia.com>>;
>     BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>     <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>
>     *Objet :* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
>     draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     [...] ____
> 
>     ...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).____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     [...] ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
>     Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>     pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>     a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>     Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
>     This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>     they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>     If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>     As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>     Thank you.
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>