Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 02 September 2021 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 15BFB3A0524 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 05:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4PwHeEXfJTXc for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 05:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBE423A041E for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 05:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (vs4.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.122]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 182CaW9W006498; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:36:32 +0100
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD63A4604A; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:36:31 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCC146043; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:36:31 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs4.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:36:31 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([195.166.134.103]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 182CaUqg014609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:36:30 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Daniele Ceccarelli'" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
Cc: "'TEAS WG'" <teas@ietf.org>
References: <6f076887-1887-4e41-a48d-6c92b282c29c@AM5EUR02FT020.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB82954D0C1EE5202964645F88F0CB9@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0cb401d79f6a$9f8767c0$de963740$@olddog.co.uk> <AM8PR07MB8295CA78F9489190DE3207BBF0CE9@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0d5701d79fe0$7e26ed50$7a74c7f0$@olddog.co.uk> <AM8PR07MB82956D54B6F6C9B249D2273EF0CE9@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM8PR07MB82956D54B6F6C9B249D2273EF0CE9@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 13:36:30 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <0d9301d79ff7$2825e6b0$7871b410$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0D94_01D79FFF.89EB8730"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQICS6XOTg68mgwKlyC3cEJnc2zatQG5yhNdAgkA5LICa1CRbAH+E+ReAyi4L9Kq4KbH8A==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 195.166.134.103
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.0.1018-26382.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.093-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--24.093-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.1018-26382.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--24.092500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: hBMWfJKIqhk7iuZ/mdYYtto4g/Zvpl9f7hNvbVC6wKZI15Zq/lxs2Cvs NO7+7DiY8ioaT5ku/LB85pjA/x1xfthQO8CvZj/XGUs9b7xvtJpnH7BQ9pAPCB614zHtsK1UoXY 2mJQXEoQuaxUO4rYWPOPEkNSS7Y82bkygYp8Zf7o8cwBuO6HB3wSmxbURm6nxz9YXdGTB0gNPbk 7YHyiVM+VbVfdLscbX2U8Foy9Ou4YnidDWjEBdOVnFZNfj6Xm26ZhZJfDWK58GsrTFQIBNVY0GB wM7K7DjlX+iQruz3vED2WXLXdz+AWm/mT16mTUCv5ndmnZN3UTG6RZ5sK4qNa9sD66wAjsxiOpy BQ8Fngr03BYMHc/RLQrcxrzwsv5uQVKkTM4o8JcI/KkZuhFDSKkLYbIpdhDAhiOsg3jsN43qd5a 1MPt8cWJQK9wIJ2210ytzHp3p+JbfANOU5+dxMWf7xKdpl+CdbXZD8n2CQDA22uoEm245fojjTD pHKwYmhzv5Bvz7TekItCy6ZX/lL4IWSprjdsebAy6/bz1VsIjFQNPEve+5IPj696hz7L2ZZmGkO F0fx8xQg2FPhnvik0UfqhOIibCHgdkHykGcMpkHEdNcmkfhQVS+FZvlvbCh7EzMr6YhO8dQ0ON3 ZFt2uUUuXkWTSi/Ri+m1DDPm2yL/fHyH+MCF5QZ0RIGkprzCLFlXZd2HA7AzUN6saZsB5R3DeMf pbWC9fX1cf3gmzDpHKdPCX1liHuHHVUlPzis9sstO9qYbwEkWPO8/JEnOWfANH3SE1u8FU6baA3 6eiawgbhiVsIMQK2u5XqFPzjITSBy7Ly9RD3iTxPTIk36/jNy6YYTTVGmUEXx3DLj25fL3JLU4g JXyx37cGd19dSFd
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ebIDyD_GvT3VoDQZDEP6IrlNORs>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
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: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 12:36:42 -0000

Hi, yet again,

 

I’d be surprised if draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang suggested the use of the NBI at the moment because the NBI is still an individual draft – we don’t even know whether the working group wants to adopt it yet. draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang  cannot hope to list all possible future customer service models. But maybe a future version will include the NBI in the list in Section 4.1 when the NBI is stable.

 

I don’t think that Figure 1 of draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10 says that the NSC NBI can be replaced with the CMI. Rather, it says that the NSC NBI can be used to instantiate the CMI. That is, the CMI is an abstract interface in the architectural model, and a number of YANG models can be used to instantiate the CMI depending on the function being offered. That is, I think, exactly what Section 4.1 of draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang says.

 

Which model(s) an operator chooses to use at the CMI depends does not depend on whether they support ACTN or not. If they don’t support ACTN, they don’t have a CMI, end of story. But if they *do* use the ACTN architecture, they may offer one or more services to their customer. For each service they offer, they (may) use a different customer service model.

 

If the provider wants to use slicing based on the VN model or the L3SM then that’s OK, and they don’t need to use the NSC NBI. On the other hand, they can offer ”slicing as a service” and may choose to use the NSC NBI for this.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> 
Sent: 02 September 2021 12:54
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com>om>; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

 

Hi Adrian,

 

Good point, you’re right...not accurate from my side.

 

Since ACTN, in addition to being a framework, is also suggesting which models to use, when I speak about ACTN I’m implying also the usage of those models: i.e. service network models (LxNM), TE models (TE topo, TE tunnel, VN) and the TE service mapping etc. 

I’m referring to  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang-07> draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang-07 section 4.1 for the CMI and 4.2 for the MPI.
 
I don’t have anything against the usage of this model as service model, but I see competition with the existing ones as a network model. 
I think Kenichi explained it extremely well in his mail:
 

“1) According to Figure 1 of draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10, NSC NBI can be replaced with CMI. If the new nbi is created, we have to parallelly implement two nbis or just wrap CMI with NSC NBI. From one of mobile operators' capex perspective, we don't want to do such effort, since we believe major ietf network slice requirements can be covered by ACTN.”

 

BR
Daniele  

 
 
 

 

From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk> > 
Sent: den 2 september 2021 11:54
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com <mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> >; 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com> >; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org> >
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org> >
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

 

Hi again Daniele,

 

> That’s a quibble that only solves the issue partially. 

> Should we use ACTN to do network slicing in networks that support

> ACTN and the Network Slicing NBI model in networks that’s don’t

> support it? 

 

You are comparing two things that are not the same.

The Network Slicing NBI is a YANG model for use on the customer service interface. That is, it allows the customer and provider to communicate about the network slice that is to be provided. 

ACTN is an architecture. That is, it describes how the management components may be arranged/structured to deliver function in a network.

 

You can use the Network Slicing NBI at an interface in the ACTN architecture.

It could be used at the CMI (in the same way that the L3SM and L2SM can be): see Section 4.1.

Or it could be used above the CNC: see Section 4.2

 

Best,

Adrian