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

Shunsuke Homma <s.homma0718@gmail.com> Wed, 03 March 2021 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <s.homma0718@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 497E13A17B8 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:06:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.847 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 oPtJymeNJ6kr for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (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 D3CC13A17BD for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id v14so11045042ilj.11 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 10:05:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oSOlDD8nAgFF3i1Tk4HZ2mkVJ0xEu6qglEX8L7Q2a/k=; b=U8AQIe9Y3QOoQCoMWDvlPvoVYS5EV4cW2899w4Tzr8xQZibdtzcnNvecG0jcilC3bY XsCtCUwGVN/XMWNVq1WRQ0rqhbdrx2Co8eYN1EZJcoKW/FJiqzCC5qZUAgilJ+1METf1 zQRQCL7433cPDwe/t3Y6tFiDzr6RZVeLqVkhXh87RtHCcBPRpAxV+xa8BBVwsTaCbI7E zruo2MUkjHaFSKwWaPpBwU1n0eRfwmoTaJSKMWsbb0pLRA8yNao6YmnKGM/A6nAjnFv4 h8s4W573vGtpKFT8hb04iVfdlId3J22Tikb95r2kPeAxERAcTGuIXuT1veMpvhAbqdFi onCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oSOlDD8nAgFF3i1Tk4HZ2mkVJ0xEu6qglEX8L7Q2a/k=; b=geoUqX0KD0oIrL4DfjwvQLH6fORhgeuHaXV16q11KkSb13m7zihKEENNGOeeWYGbwQ KUet7dvlK3gCrLyu/ODHUHY651JP8Zww/qQqRMfrek8czs0lInYlFlgpvZqN2a7872Q4 F3uHUKVfltJUYd/Vsuv2ELtaVDZ268KFQyZB0mjtxn4wnmwiQs4q4ngBYHrMoEwh1ry9 8eqlyjoHDl9M4PZTbzpwgmWpxCGwtc8cYbCIW9J7SSrv9ocXszH67OzesTWEdOjX0EcE OUnmlOaGjTKllJI0TUC9NXQRe5/3d2YhT6LHj1Fh0PCVlxcu6A4AbZiUIEMrH+rsxLFR KnUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533WNpRIDP7zAeBxdJRppVfDAHobo+GXrxb7OYx9PbV7WFMyH8SI hL+h509b2L04fvN9UeJfBdjo7n+UFY9Dr+du4Kw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy5y65OlCK4uz+DZfcO3S16JZc8bkbO788BsoKh10EjuQzRs60Cu66BoxMEubEzUqIt0eiP5POTFufJ55KrvqI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1a29:: with SMTP id g9mr488469ile.54.1614794751998; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 10:05:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cc3949a4-1e60-7f77-45bd-2470be67d9d5@joelhalpern.com> <28233_1613491513_602BED39_28233_126_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF830@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <1bf03e82-3734-885a-7047-cacf5c63d9cc@joelhalpern.com> <8211_1613493543_602BF527_8211_334_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF95E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <cde51de3-4533-9acd-a654-59a1dc9f195b@joelhalpern.com> <11878_1613494720_602BF9C0_11878_194_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315CF9FC@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <MN2PR05MB6623B0D3F5EEECFB3CE3FA8BC7809@MN2PR05MB6623.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <71F75531-DE7E-419E-890D-A5AB6D5F4D8F@nokia.com> <27179_1614103167_6035427F_27179_485_2_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315D83ED@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <54DAE6D4-7435-4E1A-9538-51F2ED35B132@gmail.com> <CAE4dcxnhjszy7OMD-JusSnDBg2oR7Buo4XKO6gXk1-DrQc2FsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE4dcxmeSLLaqa2Q7VTF=EJZXiyMV6hft2pCMSASAWb+N6PmVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGHSPWNmr3RQrSGsbsEvyGoLqtY1eqPQ=uOv=oDdQFNz3_VLiA@mail.gmail.com> <069101d70b64$3d32bf10$b7983d30$@olddog.co.uk> <81cdb36e29e64fd79bafeb578926e6a8@huawei.com> <CABNhwV2ZVT47m17KARJDjXzr232bs5srp2KdD7njmgTPw0=8BQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb9cd6F7GGq7Pw-jPpxzwQtTE7M_DY0oQ83mmENoEHkTFw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3Dz86VkePniMGmF6vOvu63VEN9J-izHZ__=qn97cqzdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb9f9B-BUobJGV2X90tCUdAtHzoZHWth4nbqKG9cN3r1Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV0q82AobMnSBYfSaCRUNKe9=yb=ZrTFaS1YGF-UOFBeWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb9dXMHSJ1psYGbUvm=6J3XFfAaZ9BwNe+F4Q_moR=Ro0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3mZVbhbNc-W_LtfUkVnT5KhqZUNFXc+we_vwBEQKj8Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb81Un6YeyE=4LPFhEpLFOn9wgzVphn8DcUMZc9vDcB9Fw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV24d7QHaKceLtiJi=v=7jMiO0=n5RQEc=apeVeu8=bRqg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1bV48f1=Cq4aM8pT9qFr-acxbkTPkrkXfZURx8JeO42A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr2Fb98qvWWHEk8ibSTujKwGC1XyyK0MQ1uAS98RDnEW3zHbA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV100r8qwvt6EQD72Wq2BAMBz3EWG09xSQHWMPxFeHAxyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV100r8qwvt6EQD72Wq2BAMBz3EWG09xSQHWMPxFeHAxyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Shunsuke Homma <s.homma0718@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:05:40 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGU6MPfC-d7skGaR7__b-X49R8Q26zceiEvj20PR7QRytM4p1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: Shunsuke Homma <shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com>, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Young Lee <younglee.tx@gmail.com>, "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000093fe8805bca5b377"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/eCHCOEJKk2z6gvBEP-Ke842z9GQ>
Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 18:06:04 -0000

Hi Gyan,

2021年3月3日(水) 11:06 Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>:

>
> Shunsuke,
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 10:33 AM Shunsuke Homma <
> shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 11:53 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Shunsuke
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 9:30 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Shunsuke
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 11:21 PM Shunsuke Homma <
>>>> shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gyan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 3:37 AM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shunsuke
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 9:06 AM Shunsuke Homma <
>>>>>> shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Gyan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please see inline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:35 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shunsuke
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 2:01 AM Shunsuke Homma <
>>>>>>>> shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Joel and Gyan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I agree that SFC classifier or tunnel endpoint can be a PE
>>>>>>>>> router. Meanwhile, I assume there are cases that CF/VNE runs on non-PE/CE
>>>>>>>>> router. For example, in case that SFC is performed within the provider's DC
>>>>>>>>> (e.g., 5G DN), the ingress GW or ToR switch will be a classifier. Then, the
>>>>>>>>> GW/ToR can be called CE or PE?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Certainly, in MPLS world, MPLS termination point is conventionally
>>>>>>>>> called PE, but I feel PE/CE may not be generally used in DC or any other
>>>>>>>>> field. Actually, Geneve termination point is called tunnel endpoint, and
>>>>>>>>> VxLAN also use VTEP (VxLAN Tunnel End Point), not CE/PE. (Sorry if my
>>>>>>>>> understanding is incorrect...)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Gyan> Agreed no PE/CE handoff.  For any of the NOV3 overlay
>>>>>>>> encapsulations  types the decapsulation happens on the leaf before packet
>>>>>>>> is handed off to host endpoint.  Because it’s a host endpoint which would
>>>>>>>>  be a server and not a customers  “CPE” gear CE switch or router as in the
>>>>>>>> MPLS world or even with broadband BNG subscribers.  So that’s the big
>>>>>>>> difference in the Data Center framework from an operators perspective that
>>>>>>>> is all the operators domain.  You can think of if from a cloud perspective
>>>>>>>> the network infrastructure is IAAS “infrastructure as a service” and server
>>>>>>>> infrastructure is PAAS “platform as a service”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shunsuke > Thank you for your elaboration. As you pointed out,
>>>>>>> frameworks of NSP network and Data Center are different, and it may be
>>>>>>> difficult to  manage with the same model. Meanwhile, in network slicing, it
>>>>>>> is needed to  provide "E2E" connectivity guaranteed specific SLA/SLO, and
>>>>>>> network slice will be sometimes deployed across both NSP network and Data
>>>>>>> Center. For example, in a smart factory scenario, robots may be connected
>>>>>>> to their operating server on NSP's cloud with Geneve-based network slice.
>>>>>>> Then, a slice endpoint will be Geneve tunnel endpoint, neither CE nor PE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Gyan> In a DC NVO3 overlay / underlay model typical leaf/spine
>>>>>> CLOS folded spine architecture, the  demarcation is clearly defined if you
>>>>>> apply the MPLS parity to DC NVO3 directly.   In that framework the spine
>>>>>> nodes are like the P routers performing in line data plane forwarding
>>>>>> similar to P label switching leaf to leaf over the folded spine as well as
>>>>>> termination of control plane and the leafs terminating NVO3 tunnel endpoint
>>>>>> vtep for vxlan for example perform the encapsulation / decapsulation
>>>>>> similar to PE label imposition and disposition.  So applying the same MPLS
>>>>>> parity to NVO3 the leaf would be the PE and the TOR connected switch would
>>>>>> then be the CE.  So the same PE/CE nomenclature can still apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For non NVO3 BGP only DC CLOS folded spine architecture we still have
>>>>>> the leaf and spine nodes  and here also the leaf would be the PE and TOR
>>>>>> hanging off the leaf would be the CE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think in any model even in GMPLS mode for example where you have an
>>>>>> peering adjacency such as inter-as tie that would be your NNI PE-PE
>>>>>> relationship.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as SFC classifier that would be on the leaf switch acting as
>>>>>> the PE demarcation to the CE TOR switch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you can really apply the PE/CE nomenclature ubiquitously to any
>>>>>> scenario.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shunsuke > Thank you very much. I understood that PE/CE model can be
>>>>> applied in every network slice scenario from the aspect of traffic
>>>>> handoffs. I agree with that, and it seems reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Gyan> Great.  I think we are making progress.😀
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, my next concern is whether we should bring terms of MPLS world
>>>>> to overlay world. (It depends on the realization, but I assume network
>>>>> slices will be realized with overlay technologies in many cases.) NVO3 and
>>>>> other  overlay technologies use "endpoint", and I feel it is more
>>>>> compatible to network slice scenarios. NSE can be also applied to every
>>>>> network slice scenario. As Reza mentioned, NSE is a logical entity of
>>>>> network slice layer and will be mapped to (virtual/physical) node in
>>>>> technology layer such as CE//PE for MPLS, VNE, VTEP, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Gyan> The concept of underlay/overlay actually historically started
>>>> with any framework where you have a concept of multi tenancy or multiple
>>>> customer framework that broadened the single tenant IP based framework to a
>>>> logical construct by creating a “hypervisor like” overlay/underlay model
>>>> now called “MPLS”.  MPLS can be utilized as a single tenant model similar
>>>> to IP based model in an enterprise MPLS framework where the PE-CE edge is
>>>> native IP “no VRF” or virtualization of the edge layer using “global table”
>>>> single layer no overlay routing PE-RR SAFI 1 for IPv4 and SAFI 4 for IPv6
>>>> BGP LU (6PE) to connect IPv6 islands over an MPLS core. “MPLS” can also be
>>>> user in a Service Provider mode of “multi tenancy” multi customer model
>>>> identical to NVO3 with a virtualization “hypervisor like” layer added with
>>>> now populating the label stack two layers deep with now a virtualization of
>>>> the PE-CE edge layer with VRF concept similar to a VM VNF on a NFV
>>>> framework, so now the topmost transport label is the  underlay global table
>>>> routing and your bottom of stack a label BOS bit set is your virtualization
>>>> layer VPN “overlay” layer identical to NVO3 “overlay/underlay” concept.  So
>>>> the idea of tunneling is tunnel endpoint and tunnel termination point is
>>>> not new and applies to any framework where you have encapsulation and
>>>> decapsualation occurring in MPLS it’s imposition and disposition of the
>>>> Label stack to forward native IP to the CE edge end in NVO3 it’s the same
>>>> removal of the outer envelope to forward native IP to the edge.  The
>>>> virtualization layer in both cases stops at the PE edge when the handoff
>>>> occurs from PE to CE as now the CE edge sits in the global table routing.
>>>> This is true any overlay/underlay architecture with MPLS and NVO3 as direct
>>>> parity examples.  We can actually think of the concept of network slice
>>>> framework as a pre existing condition of any overlay / underlay model as
>>>> logically the overlay “VPN overlay” or “NVO3 overlay”  is a slice of the
>>>> physical with the virtualization layer terminating on what we call today a
>>>> “PE” and tomorrow with network slice paradigm shift with my parity added in
>>>> the paradigm shift we end up still calling it a “PE”.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I think some modification or extension of definitions of CE/PE
>>>>> for these usage if we use CE/PE terms instead of NSE. As Kenichi pointed,
>>>>> "customer" of CE actually means "consumer". PE may mean edge of IETF
>>>>> technology-enabled domain, not provider network, in such usage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Gyan> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I don't see any serious problems whichever is chosen, and
>>>>> think this is a matter of taste finally. Or we need more consideration from
>>>>> different aspects.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Gyan> The major take away here is in my mind is added industry
>>>> confusion or layer of abstraction as it may be with new nomenclature where
>>>> we are really still talking about the same endpoint type.  Nothing has
>>>> really changed, but it’s just wrapping our heads around the network slice
>>>> concept where in reality it has existed for decades.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Shunsuke > In the recent network slicing concept, I think that two
>> factors are added to the existing traditional network model: E2E coverage
>> and on-demand provisioning by automation. In many cases, IETF network is a
>> part of the entire network connecting end hosts, and an E2E network slice
>> would be realized with combining network slices deployed over different
>> type of networks. Also, in the future, deployment of each network slice and
>> combining them will be fully automated with orchestrators (for E2E and each
>> domain). Then, what should be prior in IETF Network Slice NBI may not be
>> providers' aspect but one consumer, including customers and orchestrators.
>> In short, terms which are general and unified independently of underlay
>> types may be needed.
>> # This is just one option, and I don't say that the PE-CE model is
>> inappropriate from such a perspective.
>>
>>
>>>     Gyan> So the concept of “network slice” is half way there with the
>>> slide concept being a pre existing condition with the overlay VPN or NVO3
>>> overlay concept.  The second half of the slicing that was missing that is
>>> now being added is the underpinnings of VPN overlay which is already sliced
>>> to the underlay now extending the overlay slicing to the underlay slice of
>>> resources.  From a cross sectional standpoint if you think of a pie the
>>> knife went half way through the slice but landed in the middle bottom half
>>> being the underlay but now when the knife goes all the way through the
>>> cross section now you have slice of pie which is the “network slice”.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Shunsuke > That's a very important point. What we need is a framework
>> for linking overlay and underlay resources.
>>
>
>     Gyan> Understood.  We have the framework draft.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-07
>
> Are you good then with using the historical PE / CE nomenclature?
>
> Shunsuke> I'm still deciding which terms would be better, but I personally
think that there are no problems to use  PE / CE  for this case.
# The definition draft's authors will provide a result of analysis about
endpoint soon.



>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For customers, it would be better that they can always request a
>>>>>>> slice with the same information/data model whatever their target is. If
>>>>>>> there are cases where CE/PE can't be fit, I think we should avoid using
>>>>>>> them as a slice endpoint.
>>>>>>> # If we focus on only transport (i.e., IP/MPLS based network) and
>>>>>>> never extend the scope to other fields, it's ok to use CE/PE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If PE/CE are conceptual entities and can be applied to any cases,
>>>>>>>>> not only MPLS(SR) networks, I assume that NSE and PE/CE are the same.
>>>>>>>>> Whichever is fine to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shunsuke
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 3:21 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the PE / CE nomenclature can be used for any
>>>>>>>>>> scenario where their is a customer handoff “demarcation” and only in those
>>>>>>>>>> cases can apply the network slicing endpoint concept.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Access - wireline/wireless
>>>>>>>>>> Wireline
>>>>>>>>>> MPLS/SR core VPN overlay - typical PE-CE demark
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MPLS/SR inter-as provider handoffs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wireless - RAN xHaul - 3GPP gateway to UE - fixed or mobile
>>>>>>>>>> wireless 4G/5G -  UE to Gateway is the handoff point
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OTN-
>>>>>>>>>> OTN GMPLS/MPLS-TP packet core - typically that is the operators
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure and so no customer handoff.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Data Center-
>>>>>>>>>> Data Center - typically no customer handoff
>>>>>>>>>> Typical DC flavors -
>>>>>>>>>> CLOS architecture BGP only DC
>>>>>>>>>> NVO3 - leaf/spine - vxlan/nvgre/geneve
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cloud - IAAS infrastructure as a service so no handoff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Content provider- no handoff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Web or content hosting - also no handoff paid for service
>>>>>>>>>> offering
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So in summary the only two scenarios where you have a customer
>>>>>>>>>> handoff is the operator access layer wireline and wireless above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I think the PE / CE nomenclature fits the bill even with the
>>>>>>>>>> network slicing paradigm shift.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gyan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:59 PM Shunsuke Homma <
>>>>>>>>>> shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if CE/PE can cover all cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, can SFC CF/SFF (ref. RFC 7665) or Geneve tunnel
>>>>>>>>>>> endpoint/NVE (ref. RFC8926)  put the internal of a provider network be an
>>>>>>>>>>> endpoint of IETF network slice? And if so, can we call them CE or PE?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Shunsuke
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 9:43 AM Gyan Mishra <
>>>>>>>>>>> hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an interesting discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand their is a paradigm shift with Enhanced VPN
>>>>>>>>>>>>  network slicing framework, however I think as John and Eric stated and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with their proposed update that “CE” replace “Network slice endpoint”
>>>>>>>>>>>> and PE replace “Network Slice Realization Endpoint”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From an industry  perspective from an operators point of view,
>>>>>>>>>>>>  I can see that maybe the Network slicing paradigm shift is being driven by
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5G which has its key constructs of XHaul front back and mid haul vRAN and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the mobile handset UE 3GPP user data plane and how much the CE is now aware
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the underlay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As Adrian pointed out the CE based VPN versus PE based VPNs and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the trade off for operators with CE based VPNs and how much knowledge are
>>>>>>>>>>>> operators willing to give their customers about the underlay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As we all know that even though 5G is the industry driver of
>>>>>>>>>>>> network slicing, the framework of network slicing as far as degree of
>>>>>>>>>>>> isolation and steering is all based on the very overlay VPN concept now
>>>>>>>>>>>> enhanced VPN+ to provide an improved user or SLA experience.   So the
>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of network slicing  underpinned of overlay VPN with underlay
>>>>>>>>>>>> resources and steering can be used for any use case with requirements of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> higher grade SLA and not just 5G , such as DETNET or any content provider
>>>>>>>>>>>> video streaming service offering or any service requiring a higher degree
>>>>>>>>>>>> of isolation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Their are definitely trade off from an economics and value
>>>>>>>>>>>> added service and ROI perspective  for CE versus PE based VPNs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another point noted in this thread which I think is important
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that is “confusion” related to changing the historical PE / CE
>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That being said I do agree with John and Eric on their proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gyan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 2:14 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <
>>>>>>>>>>>> jie.dong@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed good discussion about the terms, and thanks to Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the explanation and summary of the PE-based and CE-based VPNs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the two figures provided in [1], the realization of IETF
>>>>>>>>>>>>> network slice in both the service layer and the tunnel layer are the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only difference is the position the NSE represents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I also support the proposal of using the well-known terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CE/PE to describe the endpoints of IETF network slice.  This could help to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce the possible confusions caused by using one term to represent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different positions. This could also help to understand the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF network slice requirements to its realization, which could be based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the architecture and technologies described in the enhanced VPN draft [3].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Farrel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:52 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* 'Young Lee' <younglee.tx@gmail.com>om>; 'Luis M.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contreras' <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* 'Joel M. Halpern' <jmh@joelhalpern.com>om>; teas@ietf.org;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Eric Gray' <ewgray2k@gmail.com>om>; 'John E Drake' <jdrake=
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>gt;; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CA/Ottawa)' <reza.rokui@nokia.com>om>;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good thread, and really good to see the debate on the WG list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m piling in in response to Young, mainly because that’s the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> email I happen to have open. But also because the perspective of Young and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luis should be valuable to us in this context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I think that the usage of “CE” and “PE” has a long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> history in packet networks, I don’t believe the concepts are firmly linked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only to packet. They are pretty much what they call themselves: the PE is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the edge of the “provider” == “underlay” network, and the CE is at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> edge of the “consumer” == “overlay” network.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that, as the discussion continues, we are still missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a really clear figure to help us talk about what we are describing. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reza’s [1] is a much better start than anything previous. Here I see the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classic distinction between a CE-based VPN and a PE-based VPN [2], 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).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But my opinion of all of this is coloured by thinking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enhanced VPNs (VPN+) [3] and IETF network slices as the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also think that Luis’ point about contiguous or stitched
>>>>>>>>>>>>> segments is important. There are, I think, two cases to be considered:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    1. The multi-domain IETF network slice. Here the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    is very much the same as the multi-AS L3VPN. We have to consider how the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    “service request” is mapped from one domain to another. But it may help to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    recall that, for all our dreaming, end-to-end multi-AS MPLS-TE tunnels are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    not much of a thing: domains don’t like sharing information about or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    control of their network resources. Thus the “E-NNI” between slice domains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    may be as much of a service interface as the “UNI” between consumer and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    provider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    2. The 5G architecture considers stitching slices from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    different technology networks to provide an end-to-end slice. From a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    consumer’s point of view, this is exactly what happens, but it is not clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    to me whether this is really what happens in a deployment. Surely there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    aggregation as we go down the technology layers and into the “transport”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    networks. That is, there may be very, very many micro slices in the RAN,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    but as this moves onto the IP transport, it is likely that the slicing is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    aggregated. That means that the stitching of slices actually follows a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    hierarchical model with recursion. The interface between slice domains is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    the “UNI”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Net-net, I like John’s original proposal. I hope we can take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that as our base point and factor in further discussions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ibycGzi5cxJUJSvRxm9OsQdDqn8/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] RFC 4026
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Young Lee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 24 February 2021 10:22
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* Luis M. Contreras <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com>om>;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> teas@ietf.org; Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>om>; John E Drake <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>gt;; Joel M. Halpern <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jmh@joelhalpern.com>gt;; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an interesting discussion. I am now in the mobile side
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reconginize that there are a number of scenarios that may need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transport network slices (which is now called IETF network slices). For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance, possibly slices may be needed in the fronthaul, midhaul and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> backhaul as well as within DC networks that host the functions. Other than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> backhaul networks, the terms CE and PE may not be adequate because for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aforementioned transport networks except the backhaul, CE and PE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology would not easily apply. For each of the aforementioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transport subnetworks, I think using slice endpoints makes more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, I agree with Luis on this point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My two cents,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Young
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021년 2월 24일 (수) 오후 7:00, Luis M. Contreras <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contreras.ietf@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Med and Joel for the answers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noting what you said, and assuming that we are covering not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only IP/MPLS technologies, probably we need to associate the same idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CE and PE to technologies where those roles are not commonly associated,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as OTN, DWDM or wireless / microwave, since all of them can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential targets of the IETF Network Slicing realization. Then, if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow this same rationale and finally the WG decides to go in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction, I guess we need to span the CE and PE conception also to those,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe explaining this in the definitions draft. Am I right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Med, when I was referring to IETF Network Slice of technology
>>>>>>>>>>>>> X or Y I was thinking on the realization. So my point here is that in case
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have an IETF Network Slice let's say realized as IP/MPLS, and another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one let's say realized on OTN or DWDM, where the IP/MPLS slice is supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the OTN/DWDM slice, can we consider that the CE is IP/MPLS and the PE is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OTN/DWDM? It sounds strange to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> El mié, 24 feb 2021 a las 7:16, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Luis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, this is all about recursion, service decomposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and manipulating customer/provider ROLES. In all cases, there are reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> points delimiting the scope of the slice from both the customer view (we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> call them, customer edges) and provider view (provider edges).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing prevents that at the realization stage, two PEs can’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be connected. I’m thinking about the example where inter-AS VPN can be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to implement an IETF network slice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, can you please clarify what do you mean by a “IETF
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Network Slice of technology X or Y” as slice is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology-agnostic? Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *De :* Luis M. Contreras [mailto:contreras.ietf@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Envoyé :* mardi 23 février 2021 23:46
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *À :* Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com>om>; John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; teas@ietf.org;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Objet :* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the CE / PE discussion, I have doubts if this would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to scenarios where we could have stitching of IETF Network Slices or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in scenarios where an IETF Network Slice of technology X is supported on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF Network Slice of technology Y. While end-point can work in all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases, I think that CE / PE don't become naturally applicable in all cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect to the discussion on IETF Network Slice Service, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it is redundant since we are talking of consumer/customer and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider in the context of  IETF Network Slice, so being "Service"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> redundant there. Probably adds more confusion than clarification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring, MD
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>>>>>>>>> Spring, MD
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>>>>>>> Spring, MD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>>>>> Spring, MD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>
>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>>> Spring, MD
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>
>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>
>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>> Spring, MD
>>>
>>> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>