Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Tue, 16 February 2021 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125D43A0B72 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:43:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Or_334-aU21L for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F8573A0B92 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Dg6HZ0XmKz6G932; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:43:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1613493834; bh=j+D7TVqjI3usHku78zzxKEgSnNbxERMfXhhtD+uRsLA=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=bRtLmxbirMbcTdhC2gmqWH8J47G25s3jvt6ITrZbu5WBrxj8HQDBHGzR6H4o16cXY vRUFPsflxiOq6913XwIvXm/Fgns2Ts/JdMWXn61f5yejnPrRUE/UhdqYK+d9VwUeub f2pTFKQSvl47SUhP62vL3rCUcGjULhJZJ3zzocNs=
X-Quarantine-ID: <71jmSUJw6aN7>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Dg6HY3sW8z6GJc1; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:43:53 -0800 (PST)
To:, "" <>
References: <> <28233_1613491513_602BED39_28233_126_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF830@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <8211_1613493543_602BF527_8211_334_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF95E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:43:52 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8211_1613493543_602BF527_8211_334_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF95E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:43:59 -0000

I would be happy to use CE and PE.  I would also be happy to use 
completely different words.  The current diagram and terminology makes 
this very confusing, and leads to problems.


On 2/16/2021 11:39 AM, wrote:
> Re-,
> Please see inline.
> Cheers,
> Med
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Teas [] De la part de Joel M.
>> Halpern
>> Envoyé : mardi 16 février 2021 17:12
>> À :
>> Objet : Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
>> network-slice-definition-00
>> The document is not about the request from the external customer (the
>> request for the end-to-end network slice). It is about the request
>> from other orchestration systems to the IETF Network Slice management
>> systems.
> [Med] ... which is still behaving as the customer role.
>   Yes, those systems need to know where they intent to
>> utilize the IETF network slice.  But the IETF network slice does not
>> need to know about that.
> [Med] This is what I fail to see. The orchestrator has an internal vision that is not available to the entity asking for a slice. These nodes are not even known to the "other orchestration systems" when asking for a slice.
>> In particular, when we get to talking about configuring the IETF
>> Network Slice properties, the edge (ingress) that the IETF Network
>> Slice controller controls (and corresponding egress) is what needs to
>> be provisioned.
> [Med] Agree, but that is a distinct phase.
> BTW, ingress/egress are as a function of the traffic direction. A node (PE) may behave as both ingress and egress for the same slice.
>> It is possible that on the egress side there needs to be information
>> about how to deliver the traffic externally.
> [Med] Agree. That node does not need to be visible (known in advance) to the entity that will consume the corresponding slice.
>    But that would not be
>> in terms of end-points since from the perspective of the IETF Network
>> Slice, on the egress that is not an endpoint of anything.
> [Med] I agree that "endpoint" is confusing. "Customer Node/Edge" vs "Provider Edge" are my favorite here.
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> On 2/16/2021 11:05 AM, wrote:
>>> Hi Joel,
>>> I disagree with this note. I do think that both flavors of
>> "endpoint" should be included in the draft.
>>> >From the customer standpoint, a slice request cannot be
>> characterized by elements not visible to the customer. The scope of a
>> requested slice can only be characterized between nodes that are
>> known to the requestor. This is usually called, CE.
>>> The mapping between a CE and a network device (typically, a PE) is
>> a process that is internal to the slice provider.
>>> The CE-PE link cannot be systematically excluded as some specific
>> behaviors may need to be enforced in the CE-PE link. Think about a
>> slice that is implemented by means of a PE-based VPN and which
>> requires some specific routing + QoS policies at the CE-PE link.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 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.