Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing

Hi,

This argument if network slicing = vpn has been discussed in the network slicing mailing list. If I recall correctly, network slicing =! vpn. Please check out the archives of the network slicing list (NetSlices@ietf.org) if you are interested in this topic. I would say network slicing is bigger than vpn in its scope, one of which Igor pointed out. 

Thanks,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:35 AM
To: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>; Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <sergio.belotti@nokia.com>; Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>; Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>; teas@ietf.org; adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing

Perhaps it's time to bring the discussion to the slicing list and report back their reaponse....

Lou

On May 16, 2017 8:31:19 AM Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Sergio,
>
> I would also like to hear more from network slicing experts.
>
> My understanding is that the difference in the separation (in terms of 
> control and data planes, security, etc.). For example, traditional BGP 
> based L3 VPNs (that use provider's common control plane for their 
> management and IP/MPLS TE tunnels to inter-connect their PEs) will 
> probably not be able guarantee for the clients msec range connectivity 
> setup times required by 5g, while provided by the same provider fully 
> separated/genuinely private IP/MPLS networks (that do not share 
> IP/MPLS control plane and infrastructure, whose network topology is 
> supported by separate L0/L1 connections) hopefully will be able to 
> provide such guarantees. Therefore, I define layer network slices as 
> dynamically managed fully isolated in control and data planes private 
> TE layer networks, which may share one or more underlying server layer networks.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Igor
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Belotti, Sergio 
> (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:08 AM
> To: Gert Grammel; Leeyoung; teas@ietf.org; adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing
>
> Hi Gert,
>
> "Thinking a bit about it I came to the point where "VPN" and "network 
> slices" seem to describe the same entity or at least a "network slice"
> being a VPN of VPNs?"
>
> I share completely your conclusion , I'd like if someone can explain 
> if a difference really exists .
>
> Thanks
> Sergio
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 7:02 PM
> To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>; teas@ietf.org; adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing
>
> Leeyoung,
>
> Thank you for taking a stab on this. Usually when getting to a 
> definition, I try to establish what kind of existing constructs would 
> fall under the definition. If my understanding is correct, the 
> following list of constructs would all satisfy the definition somehow.
> - A TDM network with a p2p TDM connection
> - A PSC capable network carrying a p2p circuit (such as EPL/EVPL)
> - An MPLS LSP using a traffic engineered IP network
> - A L2VPN using a traffic engineered MPLS network
> - A L3VPN using a traffic engineered IP network
> - A TCP connection using a traffic engineered IP network
> - Different QoS classes in an IP network
>
> Thinking a bit about it I came to the point where "VPN" and "network 
> slices" seem to describe the same entity or at least a "network slice"
> being a VPN of VPNs?
>
> Gert
>
>
> On 2017-05-17, 16:44, "Teas on behalf of Leeyoung" 
> <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of leeyoung@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi Adrian and others,
>
>     We'd like cross check with you on some terminology we introduced newly. Any 
>     comment on these terms will be greatly appreciated.
>
>     We introduced 'network slicing' as follows:
>
>             Network slicing is a collection of resources
>             that are used to establish logically dedicated virtual networks
>             over TE networks. It allows a network provider to provide
>             dedicated virtual networks for application/customer over a
>             common network infrastructure. The logically dedicated
>             resources are a part of the larger common network
>             infrastructures that are shared among various network slice
>             instances which are the end-to-end realization of network
>             slicing, consisting of the combination of physically or
>             logically dedicated resources.
>
>
>     Thanks.
>     Young and Daniele
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Leeyoung
>     Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 1:41 PM
>     To: teas@ietf.org
>     Subject: RE: [Teas] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-05.txt
>
>     Hi,
>
>     This update is intended to incorporate the comments from the last WG 
>     meeting and any pending issues. We also have taken the global editorial 
>     changes to make it consistent through the document. Major changes are:
>
>     - Inclusion of "network slicing" definition from ACTN perspective (in the 
>     terminology section)
>     - Added virtual network service (VNS) section (Section 3) to define types 
>     of VNS.
>     - Incorporated "orchestration" (service/network) mapping to ACTN 
>     architecture (See Section 5.2)
>     - Created a new section 6 (Topology Abstraction Method) where we imported 
>     some texts from ACTN abstraction method  
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-abstraction-01
>     - Added Appendices A & B to discuss example deployment scenarios such as 
>     example of MDSC and PNC functions integrated in Service/Network 
>     Orchestrator (Appendix A) and example of IP + Optical network with L3VPN 
>     service (Appendix B)
>
>     In regard to ACTN abstraction method draft, we are going to keep it as a 
>     separate draft and use this document to elaborate other aspects not 
>     imported to the framework document.
>
>     The following diff pointer will help you see the changes with this revision:
>     
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-05
>
>     The co-authors believe that the document is ready for WG LC. Any 
>     changes/comments will be appreciated.
>
>     Thanks & Best regards,
>     Young & Daniele (on behalf of other co-authors/contributors)
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
>     Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 10:41 AM
>     To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>     Cc: teas@ietf.org
>     Subject: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-05.txt
>
>
>     A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>     This draft is a work item of the Traffic Engineering Architecture and 
>     Signaling of the IETF.
>
>             Title           : Framework for Abstraction and Control of Traffic 
>             Engineered Networks
>             Authors         : Daniele Ceccarelli
>                               Young Lee
>     	Filename        : draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-05.txt
>     	Pages           : 41
>     	Date            : 2017-05-05
>
>     Abstract:
>        Traffic Engineered networks have a variety of mechanisms to
>        facilitate the separation of the data plane and control plane. They
>        also have a range of management and provisioning protocols to
>        configure and activate network resources.  These mechanisms
>        represent key technologies for enabling flexible and dynamic
>        networking.
>
>        Abstraction of network resources is a technique that can be applied
>        to a single network domain or across multiple domains to create a
>        single virtualized network that is under the control of a network
>        operator or the customer of the operator that actually owns
>        the network resources.
>
>        This document provides a framework for Abstraction and Control of
>        Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN).
>
>
>
>     The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework/
>
>     There are also htmlized versions available at:
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-05
>     
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-0
> 5
>
>     A diff from the previous version is available at:
>     
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-05
>
>
>     Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>     submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
>     Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>     ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Teas mailing list
>     Teas@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Teas mailing list
>     Teas@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>