Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and resolution

Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com> Sun, 26 April 2020 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <zhenghaomian@huawei.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 E0FEC3A08EA for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 UAmWV7R0HlyT for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 0A85B3A08E8 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml726-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D0B2922C68CC3F90D9DA for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:44:10 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml726-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.77) by lhreml726-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:44:10 +0100
Received: from DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.38) by lhreml726-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 03:44:10 +0100
Received: from DGGEML531-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.240]) by DGGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::fca6:7568:4ee3:c776%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:44:05 +0800
From: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and resolution
Thread-Index: AdYbdItwZqSV0WoJSFOt1j29Tf6CaA==
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 02:44:04 +0000
Message-ID: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43F83079E@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.24.176.178]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/NuPSASO21XmFZKeNYuhwprnICuo>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and resolution
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: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 02:44:16 -0000

Not sure if I understand your question correctly. 
Well, it's reasonable for people to request hard isolation because 'I don't want my data to be transported together with other people's data'. 
For delivery this can be achieved by separating physical devices/connections, which are visible to users. For example dedicated boxes and fibers will guarantee the user's data is not mixed with others...

Best wishes,
Haomian

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] 
发送时间: 2020年4月26日 10:34
收件人: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>om>; teas@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and resolution

(trimmed)
What is the user perceivable effect that the user is asking for when you say "if the user requests isolation"?

Yours,
Joel

On 4/25/2020 10:31 PM, Zhenghaomian wrote:
> Hi, Kiran, Joel,
> 
...
> BTW, regarding the isolation, I don't see the necessity to argue whether it should be in SLO or not. The isolation itself, can either be requested by the user of the transport slice (then from NBI of TSC) to express the demand of reliability, or be offered by the provider of the transport slice (then from the SBI of TSC) to achieve the SLO requested from the user. In other words, if the user requests certain level of isolation in an SLO, such isolation should be provided; if the user does not request certain level of isolation (no isolation request in SLO), then there may be some isolation provided to satisfy the user's request.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Haomian