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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear Joel,
thank you for bringing the matter of "isolation" to the discussion. I
agree, that it is not practical to expect physical isolation in modern
networks. In my view, a transport slice that requires isolation is as a
transport connection that expects to receive data only from the specific
domain and not from any other domain. In other words, I view isolation as
the absence of mis-connectivity (in transport network interpretation which
differentiates between path continuity check and connectivity
verification). If my interpretation is acceptable, then isolation can be
monitored using connectivity verification OAM mechanism(s).
I much appreciate your thoughts, opinion on the proposed interpretation of
isolation on transport slice.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:57 AM Joel Halpern Direct <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Trimmed, in line.
> Joel
>
> On 4/26/2020 11:08 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > Please see some replies inline:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:52 AM
> >> To: Zhenghaomian <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation
> and
> >> resolution
> >>
> ...
> >> More importantly, it is not something the customer has any way to
> verify.
> >> There is no test a customer can run that will verify this.
> >> Making unverifiable promises is rarely a useful thing to do.
> >
> > Totally agree that tools for verification is important. As mentioned in
> Haomian's mail, isolation can be verified with suitable tools which can be
> used to collect the information at the necessary places with a suitable
> interval. And it is important that customers can be provided with such
> tools to monitor the performance and be informed of SLA violation.
>
> As far as I can tell, the observable that you describe is latency
> variation (or maybe loss).  Fine, describe the SLO in terms of latency
> variation  (or loss).  Given that there are always imperfections in the
> system, the customer may think that the issue is isolation.  But what he
> can observe, and as far as I can tell what he cares about, is delay
> variation, loss, or other factors that affect his traffic.
>
> To use a different example, I have learned from the advocates to hate
> bufferbloat.  But even their tests measure delay, delay variation, etc.
> They then infer the presence of large buffers.  But in fact, if the
> large buffers are present but never used, we would all be happy.  So the
> SLO on this would be in terms of latency, latency variation, loss, etc.
> Not bufferbloat.`
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> PS: Note that I understand that operators get asked for odd things mby
> >> customers.  But if we are going to define standards to support it, we
> need to
> >> understand the actual need.
> >>
> >> On 4/25/2020 10:44 PM, Zhenghaomian wrote:
> >>> 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:[e-mail]]
> >>> 发送时间: 2020年4月26日 10:34
> >>> 收件人: Zhenghaomian <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Teas mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>