Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow
"Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 01 October 2021 11:15 UTC
Return-Path: <contreras.ietf@gmail.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 93B7A3A0A01 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 04:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 1rnxRHU4Pmon for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 04:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46CCC3A0A05 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 2021 04:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id m26so8553228qtn.1 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Oct 2021 04:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6H99H6xv9gqOdKyUT6lY1fjABZz4V9oGDqMUMz2/55M=; b=qrP+3cPbbyNFwArnWCFCazLNS4khr8DmpPLem3nOU0YM6TWx6kIZswPkl963nYUzUH VTE6Mi64olSdyOy7JTVSKhsYyuWV3cqTmpqaNPPSK0+/yBTMv4sVqSw895IkoPz2U47q pwBOL0AfVtjw2vKojZRvKQ77DFDlNPVXgBNAuOEBkPKxmYoXoT1jtRn1hY8iNqKVsblq 9NzzWf6JkdRNhQ5E8aOOo+2fQ2pGSWOU+5Z0bCdUua89Zv32BcNoBF6tUB8awh4MjdGI uXLkRgXruMoZxerOYO93X24eRob1UAX7KPWva7b+1sg4F2H//6T9n4DxTPTVjW+ja2IV 8QAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6H99H6xv9gqOdKyUT6lY1fjABZz4V9oGDqMUMz2/55M=; b=40DVJAsDtaWHTwLV5IUleDSIWFtEBdj2YfLBOdB4EIfOeoIQPaIfSHQYJmLjh/1s9i Z65+/Vfo8wdZPjpupcAf/ROCoNee0PBHHA631T9f8UFyOc2v2LTuwkkQqkwWvrEGNOJA r57lvDRoZVMC1d5rNj6P9ugLJA2PBysSlacXpae74w6rQ51KCmVfC4T7JcgUE4X9Q881 xykYcK8hdwNyR9VSv+7PZAAk2hMjf/zOd00/V7eJNNxOJDRHLtjSlDQ9bYePE2nOj8mk tpblWJXKjX7cWbbC1wbkXlHvrxq/af/R2pTdy3d2cuGe21pOT9dYeyPNj1eR+xlUpu2V 1ZlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5303Ocv4ptuA0/+bKRb57zTf2pjR0+Wm7fv3eL93aV/gu1QXX9oq w3Rejp0XgXALeC4/0F2bYC1aWuj5F2JRvRZwpt8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxSg5nHpCVhFsKTp2neR3kZ1e6QpRqnlsuON1jwsuczYgTBAZwEHTjb9pUkUjJT3oR8euUamampJxlGpRcU6NI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:181:: with SMTP id s1mr12559615qtw.47.1633086895086; Fri, 01 Oct 2021 04:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <055201d7b3cd$0b577eb0$22067c10$@olddog.co.uk> <6733_1632930272_615489E0_6733_151_7_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303540F420@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <OSAPR01MB35548BCBDDE80A9DC5ACAF1190AA9@OSAPR01MB3554.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> <7016_1632993050_61557F1A_7016_25_4_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303540FCED@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <OSAPR01MB3554D03AFF7BAA1F9597893990AA9@OSAPR01MB3554.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> <CAEz6PPRXoLPqJCQzs4e4AyyAhFXeRo8a0zxpwxGcgpEZS6oSWw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEz6PPRXoLPqJCQzs4e4AyyAhFXeRo8a0zxpwxGcgpEZS6oSWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 13:14:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE4dcxnsOv1ug5STfLz+9ME0fkL_kYXcoP-TJa8dXUMA2C55Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ogaki, Kenichi" <ke-oogaki@kddi.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000044dfd105cd48ac71"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Tmf91k3s3UpUdPzrlrusVinkI_Y>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow
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: Fri, 01 Oct 2021 11:15:02 -0000
Hi all, two additional aspects that could be considered: .- feedback to the customer in case the slice can be realized following different technology-specific alternatives. .- something related with previous comments: reservation and later activation of the slice (even parts of it). Best regards, Luis El jue, 30 sept 2021 a las 23:11, Xufeng Liu (<xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>) escribió: > As Med mentioned, a state report would be an expected step: > > - The NSC reports back to the customer as a function of the previous step > > Also, should this report include all allocated resources and maps? Or > partial allocations with follow-up updates? > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 6:33 AM Ogaki, Kenichi <ke-oogaki@kddi.com> wrote: > >> Hi Med, >> >> In the other SDOs, the reservation step may be introduced after a >> successful feasibility check. >> Clause 7.3.3. of ETSI NFV IFA 013 V4.2.1 is easy to understand. >> >> https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/nfv-ifa/001_099/013/04.02.01_60/gs_nfv-ifa013v040201p.pdf >> >> When we assume TE technology, the reservation, LSP setup, is almost same >> as the creation, but the reservation may be necessary for SFC case. >> >> Thanks, >> Kenichi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> >> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 6:11 PM >> To: 大垣 健一 <ke-oogaki@kddi.com>; adrian@olddog.co.uk; teas@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow >> >> Hi Kenichi, >> >> I agree this makes sense even if I think that this can be handled by the >> protocol used to place a request (confirmed commit in netconf, for >> example). >> >> A successful feasibility check does not guarantee that a subsequent >> request will be accepted unless some resource preservations are made, >> though. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >> > -----Message d'origine----- >> > De : Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> De la part de Ogaki, Kenichi Envoyé >> > : jeudi 30 septembre 2021 10:39 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET >> > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; adrian@olddog.co.uk; teas@ietf.org >> > Objet : Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow >> > >> > Hi Adrian and Med, >> > >> > As I wrote below before, a feasibility check request step may be >> > introduced before the creation request. >> > A feasibility check has a broad sense, but we can limit the scope to >> > the available resource check to create a slice. >> > This may be not used by an end user(consumer), but a Customer higher >> > level operations system* may require to avoid the creation failure or >> > suspended state. >> > It corresponds to VN compute of Sec. 4.3.1 of actn-vn-yang model. >> > >> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/WZKp2PHrPqH5J5_km8Mz8P2pSVU >> > / >> > >> > *Figure 1 in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-04 >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Kenichi >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of >> > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com >> > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 12:45 AM >> > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; teas@ietf.org >> > Subject: Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow >> > >> > Hi Adrian, >> > >> > > For that reason, I think it would be wrong to document a workflow. >> > > (This is a change to my original opinion!) >> > > >> > > Maybe add a sentence to explain that the order that the >> > > architectural networks are constructed is open for operational choice. >> > >> > Seems reasonable. Internals to the NSC should be kep as such >> > (especially, the second and third bullets of your list). >> > >> > Another approach would be to focus only on the visible external >> > behavior, >> > e.g.,: >> > >> > - The network exposes its (slice) capabilities >> > - The customer requests a slice >> > - The NSC maps the requests to the capabilities while applies provider >> > policies (if any) and then creates the resource partition >> > - The NSC reports back to the customer as a function of the previous >> > step >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Med >> > >> > > -----Message d'origine----- >> > > De : Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> De la part de Adrian Farrel >> Envoyé : >> > > lundi 27 septembre 2021 20:25 À : teas@ietf.org Objet : [Teas] >> > > Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow >> > > >> > > Dependent slightly on the resolution of issue #6 (architecture and >> > > terminology), we could document a workflow. >> > > >> > > For example,: >> > > - customer requests a slice >> > > - NSC maps slice to a slice group >> > > - NSC maps slice group to a resource partition >> > > - NSC allocates resources to the resource partition >> > > >> > > But it seems to me that these steps could happen in pretty much any >> > > order depending to operational preferences and possibly the >> > > technology of the network. >> > > >> > > For that reason, I think it would be wrong to document a workflow. >> > > (This is a change to my original opinion!) >> > > >> > > Maybe add a sentence to explain that the order that the >> > > architectural networks are constructed is open for operational choice. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > Adrian >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Teas mailing list >> > > Teas@ietf.org >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >> > >> > ______________________________________________________________________ >> > ____ _______________________________________________ >> > >> > 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 >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Teas mailing list >> > Teas@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >> > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > -- ___________________________________________ Luis M. Contreras contreras.ietf@gmail.com luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
- [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Work… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] ***フリーメール*** Re: Network slicing frame… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … Luis M. Contreras