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

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

I think it was Eric that pointed out that ‘CE’, ‘PE’, and ‘attachment circuit’ describe entities that may either physical or virtual and which are completely technology agnostic.  Further, the reference I provided,  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4364#section-9, describes the case where a CE is actually a PE in another provider’s network.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Shunsuke Homma <[e-mail]>; Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi all,

I concur on Shunsuke’s questions. I think as well we need a logical identifier independent of the underlay. Think also that in the same slice request we could have a mix of situations. For instance we could be providing a slice where in one of the ends we have a physical network function connected to a router (then classical CE-PE approach) while another end of the slice being a virtualized network function with the handover of traffic to the slice being resolved in the internals of the data center (I mean, the slice being terminated in some of the leaf/spine routers there, where I don’t see an easy mapping of CE-PE).

Having a single approach would be desirable for all the cases and situations, including the mixed ones.

Best regards

Luis

De: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> En nombre de Shunsuke Homma
Enviado el: jueves, 4 de marzo de 2021 18:13
Para: Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
CC: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Thanks Med and Joel.

I agree that CE can be an endpoint of IETF Network Slice in managed CE case, and in other cases, IETF Network Slice is PE to PE.

And this is a reason why I'm hesitating to use the term CE/PE as the endpoint of IETF Network Slice. If endpoints may vary depending on underlay implementation (e.g., whether CE is managed or not), a logical identifier independent of underlay would be needed to simplify network slice model. (In my understanding, it was NSE.)

Also, I understand the concept of "IETF Network Slice Service",  but I have some questions. In case that CE is not managed, can we call the connection between CEs which includes uncontrollable section IETF Network Slice Service?

One more, in the wholesale model, a slice broker may create an E2E network slice by combining slices provided from several network providers. In such a case, from a broker, where are endpoints in each network provider's domain? For simplifying it, I think IETF Network Slice Service and IETF Network Slice should be the same. For instance, IETF Network Slice Service between PE and PE (excluding a case that CEs are managed).

Regards,

Shunsuke

2021年3月4日(木) 22:02 Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>:
That works for me.
Thanks Med.
Joel

On 3/4/2021 6:05 AM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> Re-,
>
> I think here where we need to invoke the new term proposed by John/Eric: IETF Network Slice Service.
>
> The IETF Network Slice Service is always between CEs.
>
> Other than the managed CE case, the scope of the IETF Network Slice is what Joel said with an emphasis on the adequate configuration of the access circuit.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
>> Envoyé : jeudi 4 mars 2021 01:42
>> À : Shunsuke Homma <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Objet : Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint
>> in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>>
>> I can't speak for Med, but in my opinion, the right scope for the
>> IETF Network Slice is PE to PE.  Information about the access circuit
>> will need to be provided, but it is not, as I understand it,under the
>> control of the IETF Network Slice Controller.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 3/3/2021 7:25 PM, Shunsuke Homma wrote:
>>> Hi Med,
>>>
>>> I think it's an important discussion. I'd like to clarify the range
>>> which should be managed as an IETF network slice. In my
>> understanding,
>>> CE will be a slice consumer's end-host or an endpoint of an
>> opposite
>>> network slice, and it will be generally out of control of IETF
>> network
>>> slice. As you described, there may be cases where CE makes marking
>> on
>>> traffic and PE allocate it to appropriate slice based on the mark,
>> but
>>> I think the arrangement between CE and PE will be done by
>>> controller/orchestrator higher than IETF Network Slice Controller.
>> In
>>> other words, a necessary policy is set to PE from higher
>>> controller/orchestrator, and IETF network slice can work
>> independently
>>> of whether the CE is slice-aware or not.
>>>
>>> So my question is which is appropriate as the range of IETF network
>> slice.
>>>
>>> 1. it is always between CE and CE,
>>> 2. it is always between PE and PE,
>>> 3. it is basically from PE to PE, and sometimes between CE and CE
>>> (e.g., in case that CE is slice-aware,)
>>>
>>> # From a network operator or slice provider aspect, I'd like to
>> know
>>> whether SLA/SLO between CE and PE must  be assured.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Shunsuke
>>>
>>> 2021年3月3日(水) 22:57 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>:
>>>
>>>      Re-,____
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>      Thanks Adrian for raising this point.____
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>      My take is that we can’t discard it by design. Take the example
>> of
>>>      stitched slices where packets are marked by the CE + that
>> marking is
>>>      trusted by the PE to graft them to the appropriate network
>> slice.
>>>      Likewise, a hierarchical design where an aggregate slice trusts
>> the
>>>      marking of the upper slice to identify how to map between the
>>>      levels. Such trust may be justified under specific deployment
>>>      contexts. ____
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>      Cheers,____
>>>
>>>      Med____
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>      *De :* Teas [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>] *De la part de* Adrian Farrel
>>>      *Envoyé :* jeudi 25 février 2021 11:52
>>>      *À :* 'Young Lee' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; 'Luis M. Contreras'
>>>      <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>>      *Cc :* 'Joel M. Halpern' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>      'Eric Gray' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>;
>> 'John
>>>      E Drake' <jdrake=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia -
>>>      CA/Ottawa)' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>;
>>>      BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>>      *Objet :* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
>>>      draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00____
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>      [...] ____
>>>
>>>      ...but we have to ask ourselves carefully whether we **really**
>> want
>>>      the CE-based approach in our network slicing:____
>>>
>>>      __-__What are the considerations for how much knowledge of the
>>>      underlay network has to be shared to the CE?____
>>>
>>>      __-__What are the considerations for how an underlay
>> distinguishes
>>>      CE-originated slicing traffic?____
>>>
>>>      These are pretty much the same questions that CE-based VPNs
>> have to
>>>      answer. Of course, the concept of a “provider-managed CE”
>> muddies
>>>      these waters somewhat.____
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>      Conversely, the port-based PE-based VPN has none of these
>> problems,
>>>      but does have to agree on the “Access Connection” encoding, and
>> that
>>>      is either payload-sensitive (like in PWE3) or technology-aware
>> (like
>>>      in L3VPN).____
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>      [...] ____
>>>
>>>      __ __
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _
>>> ___________________________________________________
>>>
>>>      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
>>>      [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WMD3Xr96AB23B9GgI2OrrZPUaiS33HPddkzMIcHwyEZDJg6U10f3IUCfqzlNPKU$>
>>>      <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WMD3Xr96AB23B9GgI2OrrZPUaiS33HPddkzMIcHwyEZDJg6U10f3IUCfqzlNPKU$>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Teas mailing list
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WMD3Xr96AB23B9GgI2OrrZPUaiS33HPddkzMIcHwyEZDJg6U10f3IUCfqzlNPKU$>
>>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WMD3Xr96AB23B9GgI2OrrZPUaiS33HPddkzMIcHwyEZDJg6U10f3IUCfqzlNPKU$>
>

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WMD3Xr96AB23B9GgI2OrrZPUaiS33HPddkzMIcHwyEZDJg6U10f3IUCfqzlNPKU$>

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição