Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.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 DD1853A0818 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 KjXf4Nxmldws for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 020923A0BBC for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049295.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 082Dh6Md029278; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:46:27 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 33ac86rmk0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Sep 2020 09:46:25 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 082DkNrd032386; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:46:24 -0400
Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [135.47.91.189]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 082DkIkH032233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:46:19 -0400
Received: from zlp30483.vci.att.com (zlp30483.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id CE30640145B1; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:46:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [135.50.89.117]) by zlp30483.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id A2BAB40145A6; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:46:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DE.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.118) by GAALPA1MSGEX1DD.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.117) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:46:00 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DE.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.118]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1DE.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.118]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:46:00 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
CC: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice
Thread-Index: AdaAahQV6S/yA+OKSoyFMszSSgrA3QAJ5F2AAAb+YAD//86xR4ABIjsAgAASnlY=
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:46:00 +0000
Message-ID: <ADDCEB38-86C8-4939-AEFB-E9C70BD851CA@att.com>
References: <70af45b0bdf54f418ad83fcb65906f4a@att.com> <CAGHSPWM0mnm_ky2wPVS4fFKpe91nNCBJvWbHtoZVm=-cDA79jg@mail.gmail.com>, <A6B4274F-E7E2-45F6-A63E-C3EFD018F0C3@nokia.com> <A274FAED-A1FB-4573-82BB-E21914E2D6B1@att.com>, <HE1PR07MB4156AE2AB156B927EE628143F02F0@HE1PR07MB4156.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB4156AE2AB156B927EE628143F02F0@HE1PR07MB4156.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-snts-smtp: 149BFADFDE524CA631F8A39F61001624AF3ECA6CFDC403DC99E028685EBF1D462
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ADDCEB3886C84939AEFBE9C70BD851CAattcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-09-02_09:2020-09-02, 2020-09-02 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009020129
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/NPso9KdSlUHgtev5kXtl2Vjw82U>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:46:32 -0000

Hi Daniele,
(as individual)

Why are you excluding RAN? RAW is already doing IP solutions, SG15 has RAN transport solutions for IP. IP is already in the RAN.

This is exactly why we can not use the term transport.

This reminds me of the early days of GMPLS when we defined a network solution and other Forum were segmenting the network with different interface names preventing an integrated network.

Already, network slice is the term used by all the SDOs for their solution. They have no problem with the term. It’s the definition for their technology that differentiates, not the term itself.

Deborah
(individual)

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 2, 2020, at 4:39 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> wrote:


Hi Deborah,

I’m not 100% happy with the term either but I think a new one is needed.
Network Slice or TE network slice are IMO not good enough to state the RAN and Core are NOT included. Using 3GPP terms both Network Slice or TE network slice makes me think of the NSI, while what we need to define here is the NSSI for the transport part only.

If we call it Network slice we risk to be forced to speak of an IETF Network Slice which will be different from a 3GPP Network Slice…not nice.

Transport slice could potentially have issues with Layer 4 slice. I know very little of Layer 4 to understand if a L4 slice exists or will ever exist, but it’s something we can check.

Daniele

From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: den 1 september 2020 21:21
To: Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

Hi,
(individual)

I’m still very confused by introducing the new term “transport” for IETF work on TE. As Young noted, it will be confused with the archaic term transport for many and it’s a misuse of 3GPP terms if it is not limited to 3GPP’s transport. Please look at the discussion thread on ACTN.

Ccamp and RAW cover wireless technologies so TEAS work is not limited to 3GPP “transport”. This work should be generic - a base - for other IETF work.

Before defining yet another term, why is the term Network Slice or TE network slice not acceptable? TE network slice will distinguish this work is for TE domains (TEAS charter work), network slice will align with IETF’s terms used in other groups. I don’t think TE transport slice is acceptable either - when we already have existing terminology that is concise.

I think you are confusing with the technology - especially if you are introducing new terms for all parts of the network - RAN slices, Core slices, Transport slice - TEAS work has never been constrained by the technology domain. “Network” is the network, no matter the division. There’s no need for all these terms.

Deborah
(Individual)
Sent from my iPhone


On Sep 1, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com<mailto:reza.rokui@nokia.com>> wrote:

All,

Please note that 3GPP does not use the term “RAN Slice” or “Core slice”. Instead they use term “Slice Subnet”.
Please refer to the following 3GPP documents for example for more info:


  *   TS 28.531
  *   TR 28.801

Also see the following (taken from http://www.3gpp.org/NEWS-EVENTS/3GPP-NEWS/1951-SA5_5G<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.3gpp.org_NEWS-2DEVENTS_3GPP-2DNEWS_1951-2DSA5-5F5G&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=9ijmMtGVBggFatq3IfGWDVh1iMG4UJB0uI4dafgi_Aw&s=1SLoaA3fRyNItAXx5nrYuHbWzRXhSUL_n5JpSvcB3sI&e=>).
The term NSI is for Network Slice instance and term NSSI is for Network Slice Subnet instance. As the picture shows, 3GPP does not differentiate between RAN and Core, all are called NSSI
The draft’s co-authors did not use the term “subnet” because at IETF this term (i.e. IP Subnet) has very clear meaning and using it in context of network slicing is confusing.

Also since the work at IETF is not just for 5G, we use the term “Transport slice”. If the use case is 5G, we also used RAN and Core Slices instead of NSSI to remove any confusion.


<image001.png>


From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Young Lee <younglee.tx@gmail.com<mailto:younglee.tx@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:56 AM
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

Hi Deborah,

I also am wondering where ' transport slicing' came from. 3GPP uses network slicing in the following three subnets: RAN, CN, and TN; and accordingly it uses RAN slicng, CN slicing  and TN slicing.

There is always prefix "Network" is associated with slicing whether it is RAN, CN, or TN.

As you pointed out, when RFC 8453 was developed in TEAS WG, we originally used the term Transport Network Slicing, but later this term was replaced with Traffic Engineered (TE) Network slicing.

Transport slicing is a bit orphanish. It should be either TE network slicing or Transport network slicing. In TEAS WG, TE network slicing might be more consistent with RFC 8453. Just for your reference, the following terminology has been defined in RFC 8453:


TE Network Slicing:  In the context of ACTN, a TE network slice is a

      collection of resources that is used to establish a logically

      dedicated virtual network over one or more TE networks.  TE

      network slicing allows a network operator to provide dedicated

      virtual networks for applications/customers over a common network

      infrastructure.  The logically dedicated resources are a part of

      the larger common network infrastructures that are shared among

      various TE network slice instances, which are the end-to-end

      realization of TE network slicing, consisting of the combination

      of physically or logically dedicated resources.

Thanks.
Young



2020년 9월 1일 (화) 오후 11:31, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>>님이 작성:
Hi,
(speaking as an individual)

Picking up on Jari’s comment “sometimes people want to use labels that are a bit more imprecise, but I think we should strive to avoid such labels as much as we can”, can you give more background on the choice of the term “transport slice”?

I noted while you have text on the use of “transport” by 3GPP as specifying a very specific sub-network in the radio network (which excludes the handoff to the rest of the network), you referenced RFC5921 (MPLS-TP) for the term “transport”.

There was a long thread of mail on ACTN, RFC8453, to move away from the term “transport” to “TE networks” which was agreed to be more specific/appropriate for TEAS. Considering IETF is already using the term “network slicing” (including TEAS RFC8453) and 3GPP use of the term, I don’t understand the use of “transport” in this document.

Considering IETF already uses the term “network slice” and 3GPP uses the term (and all the industry SDOs), I am concerned we will be confusing the industry, especially as “transport” is an imprecise term for TEAS work. Is this work a subset and scoped only to the 3GPP “transport” cloud (and implied use of MPLS-TP)? Or is it planned to be generic (for all TE networks)?

Deborah
(speaking as individual)
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=9ijmMtGVBggFatq3IfGWDVh1iMG4UJB0uI4dafgi_Aw&s=LvYkDPlAn-K0sjB9D2KX_ocsYQqekQuDux4QILJryE0&e=>