Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slicerealization

[龚立艳 <[e-mail]>]

Hi All，


The draft-cheng-spring-srv6-encoding-network-sliceid[1] also provided a slice ID encoding solution.


And about the discussion, we are fine to follow the final decision of the WG, no special requirements.





[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-spring-srv6-encoding-network-sliceid/





Best Regards,


Liyan Gong





----邮件原文----发件人：Lizhenbin  <[e-mail]>收件人："[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>抄　送: "Dongjie \\(Jimmy\\)" <[e-mail]>,"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,TEAS WG  <[e-mail]>,John E Drake  <jdrake=[e-mail]>,"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,Adrian Farrel  <[e-mail]>,Tarek Saad  <[e-mail]>发送时间：2021-08-17 00:04:32主题：Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slicerealization
    

Hi authors of draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id,


 


It is known that your drafts are also related with the underlay construct used for slice realization. It also seems that you use the term with “slice”  for the underlay construct. In the discussion of TEAS WG, there is some consensus to define a neutral new term without “slice”.  Wish to learn your opinions on the new term definition and there would be a convergence on the new term after your participating  in the discussion.


 


 


Best Regards,


Robin


 


 


 



From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John E Drake Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 8:53 PM To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> [e-mail] <[e-mail]> Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> Cc: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> TEAS WG <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization




 


Hi,


 


It sounds like slice aggregates, or more generally overlay network service aggregates, are the things which use resource partitions.


 


Yours Irrespectively,


 


John



 


 


Juniper Business Use Only



From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy) Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 9:20 AM To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> Cc: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> TEAS WG <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization




 


[External Email. Be cautious of content]


 


Hi Pavan, 


 


Sorry for chiming in, please see some comments inline:


 



From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 1:32 AM To: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> Cc: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> TEAS WG <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization




 


** As a WG participant.. **



 Adrian, Hi!



 Thanks for your earlier emails in this thread that have helped drill down the discussion to the specific item that needs a fresh term! Please see inline (prefixed VPB).



 -Pavan (as a WG participant)



 


On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:05 AM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:



Thanks for your useful opinion, Tarek.


 


I have no objection to the use of the word “aggregate”. It is generally used to express grouping together to treat as a single entity or to be treated in the same way.


 


But I do like “foo aggregate” to mean that a number of foo have been aggregated.




 


[VPB] But, that isn’t necessarily how IETF has been using the term “aggregate”.  “Behavior Aggregate” (as defined in IETF) doesn’t mean aggregating behaviors. The same goes for “Treatment Aggregate”. Behavior Aggregate (the way we read/interpret it) is an aggregate with a specific behavior. 


 


[Jie] I just checked the definition of the “aggregate” related terms in the RFCs:


 


Behavior Aggregate (defined in RFC 2474): a collection of packets with the same codepoint crossing a  link in a particular direction.”


 


Traffic Aggregate (defined in RFC 3086): a collection of packets with a codepoint that maps to the same  PHB, usually in a DS domain or some subset of a DS domain.


 


Treatment Aggregate (defined in RFC 5127): This term is defined as the aggregate of Diffserv service  classes.  A treatment aggregate is concerned only with the forwarding treatment of the aggregated traffic,  which may be marked with multiple DSCPs.


 


My reading of these definitions is that “aggregate” here means either aggregated packets or aggregated service classes which are treated in the same  way on a particular node or link.


 


While what we want to describe with the new term IMO is “a group of network resources allocated on a set of network nodes and links”. Such group  of resources can be provisioned in different places of the network and are organized together to provide a specific network-level behavior. 


 


Thus the key information to be delivered with the new term is “a group of organized resources in the network”, rather than “aggregated behavior at  a particular point”.


 


Best regards,


Jie



 


So “slice aggregate” would be an aggregation of slices. Your use in I-D.draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet is, therefore, confusing. If the slices are *not* separated out into different flows (or traffic streams) then, yes, you are aggregating slices. But if the slices are separated out, as you describe,  then what you have is “IETF network slice traffic stream aggregation”.




 


 


[VPB] Yes. The definition of the slice aggregate (as defined in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet) does state that the slice aggregate comprises of one or more IETF network slice traffic streams.  We could have chosen a longer  descriptive name, but opted to keep it short.



 


 


“Network resource aggregate” would imply that resources have been collected together to be used as a single entity.




 


[VPB] Not necessarily. "Network Resource Aggregate" isn39t meant to imply "aggregating network resources". The intent behind the proposal is to say that it is an aggregate that has specific network resources. 



 


You might do that, for example, with a set of parallel links that can be aggregated (or bundled) and treated as a single link.


 


I don’t think we are aggregating resources in this case. We are grouping, profiling, partitioning, collecting, or even filtering.


 


Adrian


 



From: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> Sent: 12 August 2021 15:41 To: [e-mail] 39Kiran Makhijani39 <[e-mail]> 39John E Drake39 <jdrake=[e-mail]>  39Dongjie (Jimmy)39 <[e-mail]> 39Lizhenbin39 <[e-mail]> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization




 


Hi Adrian/all,


 


As described in I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition, an IETF Network Slice service may include multiple connections that associate sets of endpoints -  each having a set of SLOs/SLEs.


In I-D.draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet, we defined a Slice Aggregate as a construct that comprises of one or more IETF network slice traffic streams that share the  same set of SLOs/SLEs.


The Slice Aggregate construct allows aggregating streams from multiple IETF Network Slice connections that share common SLOs/SLEs so that the provider network  can offer the same aggregate treatment to them. The Slice Aggregate resources are instantiated on specific network elements as dictated by the Slice Aggregate topology.


 


Since the scope of I-D.draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet was the realization of IETF Network Slice service in a provider network, we had constrained the aggregate  construct to slices.


 


We understand that the aggregate construct can be generalized to support other services. Let us offer another option to consider for representing the generic  construct: “Network Resource Aggregate”. There are multiple IETF documents that use the term Aggregate whenever grouping multiple service classes (Behavior Aggregate, Treatment Aggregate, Traffic Aggregate,  etc.) - refer to rfc5127 and rfc2474 for more examples.


 


Regards,


Tarek


 


 



From: Teas <[e-mail]> on behalf of Adrian  Farrel <[e-mail]> Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:38 PM To: 39Kiran Makhijani39 <[e-mail]>, 39John E Drake39 <jdrake=[e-mail]>,  39Dongjie (Jimmy)39 <[e-mail]>, 39Lizhenbin39 <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization



I wonder whether we can pick this apart and put it back together in a way that makes sense. The customer39s view of all this is an "IETF network slice service". I think (hope) we are all agreed on this. The customer may ask (in shorthand) for a "network slice", but: - they are talking about IETF technology, so they asking for an "IETF network slice" - they actually want behavioural characteristics and have no right to tell the operator   how to manage the network, so they are asking for an "IETF network slice service." The operator has a bigger set of things to worry about. 1. At the top of the operator39s view is the "IETF network slice service" as     requested by the customer. We have this defined already, so nothing more     to say. 2. The operator maps the request for a slice service into the "IETF network     slice" which is the expression of the service in terms of network connectivity     in the context of the operator39s network. The relationship here is like the     relationship between the L3SM and L3NM. 3. At the bottom of their view is an underlying network. The technology of this    network depends, of course, on the operator39s offering, but this is the network    technology being sliced. It may be an IP network, and MPLS network, an OTN,    or whatever. I would call this the "Underlay Network." This network may, in    turn, be built upon an underlay network of the same or a different technology,    and it may be facilitated through network slicing - but this need not concern    us here. 4. That leaves the glue in the middle: the bit that enables the scaling and maps    the network slice to the network. And I think it is this bit that is causing the    most debate about terminology. There are some points to consider:    a. The term "network resources" applies to the bandwidth, queues, buffers,        etc. available on the links and nodes in the network. That may be        extended to refer to whole links and nodes.    b. The number of IETF network slice services is potentially large and the        operator needs a mechanism to scale the mapping of services to        network resources.    c. The IETF network slices may be grouped for identical treatment to        achieve scaling, where the grouping collects IETF network slices with        similar SLAs.    d. It may be that different traffic flows within a single IETF network slice         have different characteristics. In this case, it may be beneficial to group         together some of the traffic flows from different slices.    e. The grouped slices/flows are enabled in the network using network         resources assigned for that purpose. The assignment may be anything         from a fully-fledged virtual network (such as in ACTN or VPN+), through         network reserved resources (such as in MPLS-TE), and centrally         accounted resources (such as SDN or possible SR), to statistically         shared resources. There seems to be various points for and against 4d. But, it would appear that this is an implementation or deployment issue that doesn39t change what the protocols need to do. So we should probably allow it architecturally, or at least, not disallow it. Of course, as Kiran points out, 4c/d/e may be a pass-through. That is, it is not necessary to implement such groupings either because there are only a few slices (which has been the view of some operators) or because the network systems can handle the number of slices. And it is in the nature of architectures of this sort that all functions can be nulled out without loss of generality, and we have to recall that the internals of provisioning systems may appear as functional blocks in our architectures, but we don39t compel implementations to adhere to that type of architecture. So I don39t think we have to worry on that account. And that brings the question of how we name the resources that are gathered in 4e. I can39t decide whether it is helpful to spend time saying why I don39t like each of the proposed terms. I certainly have things I don39t like about (for example) "slice aggregate" (because of 4d, which means it is really a "slice sub-flow aggregate"), and I am not a fan of "VTN" (because of "transport" and maybe it is not really a network). But maybe it is better for me to say what I think we should call things? I think we have... -       IETF network slice service (customer view) -       IETF network slice (operator view) -       Resource partition (delivery mechanism) -       Underlay network (network used to support the slice) Why "resource partition"? Well it is a collection of "nodes, links, and network resources that are marked within the network for use by a set of network slice traffic flows". It is possible that the word "partition" is too strong because it may imply to some people that resources in a partition cannot be shared, but I don39t feel that. Softer words than "partition" would be "group", "bundle", "pool", and I could live with any of them. Best, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Kiran Makhijani Sent: 11 August 2021 16:00 To: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]> Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> Lizhenbin <[e-mail]> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization Hi John, (and all), Two very basic clarification questions: 1. How do we differentiate between  the slice-segments that are resource-aware vs those that are not? I had assumed that since a slice has an SLO, it will need network resource allocations in some form. 2. Is it ok to assume that the customer view of slice is an 39IETF network slice service39 and the 39IETF slice realization39 of that service in a provider network is raises the question of underlay and overlay constructs. Am I right? (a) if so, then we are acknowledging  the presence of another layer of abstraction (for realization). It could be underlay/overlay or aggregate/??. Then the term 39slice aggregate39 is better and my preference, it is easier to see that different slice-services are aggregated into a single construct  in a provider network. Use of underlay/overlay are confusing. (b) for a leaner provisioning, I would also prefer to see it documented that the aggregate is optional and it should be possible to directly map a slice-service to physical or real resources in the network. specifically useful when a single domain is carving out slices for different purposes. Thanks Kiran ------ Original Message ------ From: "John E Drake" <jdrake=[e-mail]> To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]> "Lizhenbin" <[e-mail]> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> Sent: 8/11/2021 5:38:05 AM Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization >Jimmy, > >Snipped, comments inline. > >Yours Irrespectively, > >John > > >Juniper Business Use Only > >>  -----Original Message----- >>  From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> >>  Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:03 PM >>  To: John E Drake <[e-mail]> Lizhenbin <[e-mail]> >>[e-mail] >>  Subject: RE: New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization >> >>  [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >underlay construct for network slice realization bound to >>  > > network slice services? That is, is the underlay construct only for >>  > > use in network slicing, or should it be generalized for more possible uses? >>  > >>  > [JD] Absolutely yes >> >>  [Jie] I guess you mean "Yes" to the latter case, which is "it should be generalized >>  for more possible uses", is my understanding correct? > >[JD]  Yes to the latter > >> >>  > >>  > > >>  > > 2.      If the answer to question 1 is YES, should it reflect the following >>  > > characteristics? >>  > > >>  > > a.      It is about the underlay >>  > > b.      It is about the partitioned resources used to deliver the network slice >>  > > services >>  > > c.      It allows the 1:1, N:1, and 1:N mapping models between the network >>  > slice >>  > > services and the underlay construct. The 1:1 and N:1 mapping may be >>  > > straightforward. Does it also make sense to divide the elements or >>  > > traffic flows in a single network slice service to carry them in >>  > > different >>  > underlay constructs? >>  > >>  > [JD]  Yes to all of the above.  Please see: >>  > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf >>  > t-drake-bess-enhanced-vpn-06__!!NEt6yMaO- >>  gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFoujxVlZ4r9 >>  > F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-ROxL4C2_xNaR2ImI4$ >>  > > >>  > > Lastly, here are some candidates of the "new term": >>  > > >>  > > Option 1: The network slice service is called "overlay slice", then >>  > > the underlay construct is called "underlay slice". >>  > > >>  > > Option 2: The network slice service is called "service slice", then >>  > > the underlay construct is called "resource slice". >>  > >>  > [JD]  I don39t think we need another term for what we are already >>  > calling an 39IETF Network Slice Service39.  Adrian and I are considering >>  > the term 39resource partition39 to describe the partitioning of underlay >>  > network resources in support of various overlay services such as IETF Network >>  Slice Services. >>  > This is congruent with the ideas expressed in: >>  > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf >>  > t-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segmen__!!NEt6yMaO- >>  gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFouj >>  > xVlZ4r9F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-ROxL4C2_xNxEfwaXg$ >>  > ts-03.  What this allows one to build is an 39partitioned underlay >>  > network topology39. >> >>  [Jie] Agree that here we are talking about the term for the underlay construct. >>  "Resource partition" captures one of its key characteristics, while IMO another >>  thing the term needs to reflect is that the resource partition is needed on a >>  subset of the links and nodes (rather than on a single node or link) in the physical >>  network, which together builds a logical network topology. > >[JD]  In my initial email, above, I was proposing 39partitioned underlay network topology39 > >> >>  Best regards, >>  Jie >> >>  > >>  > > >>  > > Your opinion about these candidates are much appreciated. You may >>  > > also propose other new term if it complies with the above two points. >>  > >>  > [JD]  I think you have exceeded your remit. >>  > >>  > > >>  > > >>  > > >>  > > Best Regards, >>  > > Robin >>  > > >>  > > _______________________________________________ >>  > > Teas mailing list >>  > > [e-mail] >>  > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/te >>  > > as >>  > > __!!N >>  > > Et6yMaO-gk!Q0ycOf0ELxT6mG1GbnO4LSL-Q99J4uu7jfdUtBECaI- >>  > > O08HqD31TGJciNjuxL2A$ >>  > >>  > _______________________________________________ >>  > Teas mailing list >>  > [e-mail] >>  > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >>  > __!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFoujxVlZ4r9F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls- >>  ROxL4C2 >>  > _xNDCrPaNQ$ > >_______________________________________________ >Teas mailing list >[e-mail] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas _______________________________________________ Teas mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas _______________________________________________ Teas mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas





_______________________________________________ Teas mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas