Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion network slicing
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 20 May 2017 04:13 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 E09B1129AD5; Fri, 19 May 2017 21:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 Dw8noGj0ofnO; Fri, 19 May 2017 21:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (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 D668B129649; Fri, 19 May 2017 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id h4so113038884oib.3; Fri, 19 May 2017 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wkMSkDp3FASmwDoPUfwj96u/WPPrF8I0jE2jz7ZRcKY=; b=tmjgq/VagA7iXKgVAVJD8UdAMYjjarQM6LMWGqTcC9J+s+2KV1utanAWm5WbZn6xOK ppDspOMvoxc6C0OFjUo3+wfM5s51tmeGgpz6XUYnTOvt2GGn9rDCEKYC7NQbnyuEd1vQ tddxLkCkyNzY4sLJJCO1LV0IwHagd1WzYDuJ/GfqqrqBVYYgpbec0rMGrVyXSc1Di4Mu AbxFPH+ThrMmTvoGwC10C4CmHM0jwFCKGAqU0RJCfRKdBEGsVqL4/a9LWOzJuUdqkG7d BqJ6cT3o4ddcjGC/zhzkmV1AWxDRb0/wApHkkx/YHrqgtkZzJq9URKp27kBHkpM/Cnrm qdUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wkMSkDp3FASmwDoPUfwj96u/WPPrF8I0jE2jz7ZRcKY=; b=XO8+pS98Yok9Za1FL/nuqvqnIWOE3pEgaUUzJ/stLA1WVskveNXzDU0rWGmBeH6U4a x2uQXS6MrCe72Tkgscdnn1uTre9U8EfYVKjCkgUjpQWSApOGao4KDXHK7Bibp2vOx5zB EjA+o+Pyu1BsA4qmRJbK9lFPkrmLXdUsDyIsGP4K73rCOMpzI4lB67kejKfBH6ZzLQMB D5IZA35fgESEuC5gx/IDiD+S9BsIKhxhocs6Nv9LQPFR3AxarQk41J+xbI1A477U/sUF ZVs9TPmm6S2cMyNLA/kZOWKHJfLjX7W9RafSwzNt6ywCg/ZmYUkGkQSspxx1lEv5zXvr LmVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD9tiOWOPS5KUAE5wK/ehNFn08c0i/TbbzkD53o6kOpPTGBb+fx 7C2+flCBbVYJKQMKIKlSu9KY97HQDQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.104.36 with SMTP id d36mr7120608oic.61.1495253631197; Fri, 19 May 2017 21:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.52.246 with HTTP; Fri, 19 May 2017 21:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AM2PR07MB099483A94CDDD068D0F86CD5F0E50@AM2PR07MB0994.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E172B2CA60E@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com> <97EE7243-CB44-40AD-B02D-98E07D9C79F2@juniper.net> <DB3PR07MB0588EA2B00C389E762D8C59F91E60@DB3PR07MB0588.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD00786390993DBF8@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com> <15c1177e0c0.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E172B2CC48E@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com> <AM2PR07MB099483A94CDDD068D0F86CD5F0E50@AM2PR07MB0994.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 12:13:50 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXjfC9fQGEEW-qE6oQyMv7t9jjdRrVRW37urdtsfTXmdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
Cc: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "NetSlices@ietf.org" <NetSlices@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140f76c896933054fecdda4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/UEG_VFVE0HotU0p2-hT5HTRYwX0>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion network slicing
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 20 May 2017 04:13:56 -0000
Hi Daniele, I think that my interpretation of network slice construct definition by 3GPP is slightly different. Please find my comments in-line tagged GIM>>. Some are to do with terminology but, I believe, it is helpful to settle the dictionary and agree on the interpretation of terms. Regards, Greg On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli < daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Young, all, > > i agree with your conclusion but would like to clarify one thing that IMO > got lost in the discussion since its beginning. > > The 3GPP definition says: > "A set of network functions and the resources for these network functions > which are arranged and configured, forming a complete logical network to > meet certain network characteristics." > > This means that a network slice IS NOT a VPN or a TE Tunnel. > GIM>> My view is that VPN or a TE Tunnel could be part of instantiation of a network slice. There likely to be additional to TE parameters that may be considered, depending on the profile of the service requested the NS. > A network slice is "something" (netslices and 3GPP will define what this > something is) that is composed by a "piece" in the RADIO domain, a "piece" > in the CLOUD domain, a "piece" in the TRANSPORT domain, plus possible other > pieces in possible other domains. > GIM>> I see separation of RAN and "transport" networks. Indeed, there will be e2e construct (will it be still referred as "network slice" or "multi-domain NS") but it can be decomposed into domain-scope NSes. What you referred to as "piece" I consider as domain-scope NS. > > The word "transport" can be misleading here since one could think of > transport technologies (e.g. WDM, OTN), but what I'm referring to as > TRANSPORT DOMAIN is that part of the network that is used to carry a packet > between two other domains. > In order to have a slice, that portion of the transport domain needs to be > engineered, hence it is all about building a TE entity and stitching > services to such entity. This is what is in the ACTN scope. > GIM>> Should we use Client-Server terms? > > My very personal opinion is that whatever belongs to the transport domain > belongs to IETF (and is already being addressed), while the rest is a > dangerous duplication of concepts standardized is other SDOs...but this is > another discussion that doesn't fit here. > > BR > Daniele > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leeyoung > Sent: venerdì 19 maggio 2017 15:15 > To: teas@ietf.org > Cc: NetSlices@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing > > Hi, > > Lou is right. There is a dedicated email list for the discussion of > "network slicing (cc'ed)" and the discussion about what that term means > should be held on that list. > > We have used similar language in draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework right from > the > 00 version. Recent changes have been an attempt to clarify what the > terminology means in the context of ACTN. We are not trying to define or > redefine "network slicing" in the ACTN document, but are trying to make it > clear how ACTN works. > > Therefore I propose the following resolution: > > 1. All discussion of the general applicability and definition of "network > slicing" is held on the netslices mailing list. > > 2. We adopt Adrian's suggestion to explain that the scope of the > definition of the terms used in the ACTN framework is limited to ACTN. That > means effectively that if there are components of a wider definition of > network slicing that are not supported by ACTN, that will be OK. > > I propose to post an updated version in the next few days and I believe > that will allow this draft to move ahead without being blocked by the > discussion in netslices. Once the IETF has a stable definition of network > slicing we can return and see how ACTN is applicable to that definition an > whether more wok is need (in a separate draft). > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > _______________________________________________ > Netslices mailing list > Netslices@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices >
- [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Ricard Vilalta
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Gert Grammel
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Kiran.Makhijani
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Jeff Tantsura
- [Teas] 答复: terminology discussion network slicing qiangli (D)
- [Teas] 答复: terminology discussion network slicing qiangli (D)
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] 答复: terminology discussion network sli… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Daniele Ceccarelli
- [Teas] 答复: terminology discussion network slicing qiangli (D)
- [Teas] 答复: terminology discussion network slicing qiangli (D)
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… sebastian
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… sebastian
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] terminology discussion network slicing Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Gert Grammel
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… sebastian
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… Gert Grammel
- Re: [Teas] [Netslices] terminology discussion net… sebastian