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

Adrian Farrel <> Thu, 12 August 2021 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161FC3A15A5 for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.894
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAY_BE_FORGED=1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ATMi1R94nx7r for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04A413A15A6 for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 17CF4eMa023185; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:04:40 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9528B46060; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:04:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF074605D; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:04:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:04:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 17CF4dkv019826 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:04:39 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Tarek Saad'" <>
Cc: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <eme7fd3b03-1b2a-47d5-a8f5-b45ecdadeb90@kmak-book2>, <00e401d78ee8$5ea55790$1bf006b0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:04:39 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <01e201d78f8b$602d0bf0$208723d0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01E3_01D78F93.C1F36FC0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQH9WPjPe7OLYGFxvp7Om4goMHB+mgIE4X06AmGfN04Br92MDgPTkFzmAN23K4kBEtvxp6rFjHYA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--8.185-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--8.185-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--8.185400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: Nk2skA4KvnTaseab4dmKaHoSz3d3UycuFe05s0alVixeUmqJNf32Qhn0 wrEetTLhnHTi72HdJmaeG1S0AybeinvUCoLZpk+xSNAjoMIsqmGKUKec2gj23WMrtJ/dH9LtlTs GW3DmpUulY4F8r0vXP7YHMKuF7w345xjR6MiuHyOL7pkh5kowWoBX0oTQQr35oY1IoKOgGrwZSU X8zcPGnwKflB9+9kWV3M41rVGynHcZYK2ueqB6+uswT7gm8PvpX5O5QoBzoLWKpgxRwTFrZMB7x ZqAzc7NODpEoLHptXXXLRpcXl5f6BCq2lP87KDXJ6TstuqB6zWBTzgHRqwu1CE6BIXrbjWd1uDM +OtX7BwBmf/gD11vZC196sn93sBvDUadX8VcWfCG9QRoM6DYXHJ0X0v6LZlx3zVpTxhgXCLnh6r B4tZovjHxTmKQiP7iu7VJ/3iujikfaOXSNZmsYcyxdffxFOISlPUErB1BxAYazvTICjA6kDZoNX JMbH+nWNbBpQ++I1mKXNybanokT9+/TXmGXmfIwKx9WEIfM6q5mekLUMbdauzPNLqk5zxy9Ib/6 w+1lWT4uJ1REX4MHQp+tuYb4NtQrbv8mckJFdCyniowqjihGMTFdTD0niH6ptXgzkntTy/0VCHd +VQiHpQlQv2uU/HivyvZgplq5gYf6Wd2337p4bUfe90t1n+SeVAW6pg8SyeKjo/Gov6DhaUjrBF sam6VX93p52Kh3tgoFW8VuxQzlVcBfjjXtvYamJwABxp5x5E1VbliictBQgGKQdFd7rNvsjFnB5 RHQ18TcSAXT4xW4IDpStszePepntkw9Ie7lyLi8zVgXoAltl8+QXBmEqIJ33fj+sMArfOUZ3IP5 ATaH1lqnxt+VPcNmJ6vyoa2XsDpxT+EhANtgDVnNOAxuGyIgYHBQtDS8bnGpcf80KOgMim9TZmo vhs2PbdenSHdJf8568p5PXYdUVZca9RSYo/b
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization
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: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 15:04:51 -0000

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


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


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




From: Tarek Saad <> 
Sent: 12 August 2021 15:41
To:; 'Kiran Makhijani' <>om>; 'John E
Drake' <>rg>; 'Dongjie (Jimmy)'
<>om>; 'Lizhenbin' <>om>;
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice


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.






From: Teas < <> > on behalf
of Adrian Farrel < <> >
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:38 PM
To: 'Kiran Makhijani' < <> >,
'John E Drake' <
<> >, 'Dongjie (Jimmy)'
< <> >, 'Lizhenbin'
< <> >,
<>  < <> >
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice

I wonder whether we can pick this apart and put it back together in a way
that makes sense.

The customer's 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

The operator has a bigger set of things to worry about. 

1. At the top of the operator's 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
    in the context of the operator's network. The relationship here is like
    relationship between the L3SM and L3NM.

3. At the bottom of their view is an underlying network. The technology of
   network depends, of course, on the operator's offering, but this is the
   technology being sliced. It may be an IP network, and MPLS network, an
   or whatever. I would call this the "Underlay Network." This network may,
   turn, be built upon an underlay network of the same or a different
   and it may be facilitated through network slicing - but this need not
   us here. 

4. That leaves the glue in the middle: the bit that enables the scaling and
   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,
       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
        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+),
        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 doesn't 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 don't
compel implementations to adhere to that type of architecture. So I don't
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 can't decide whether it is helpful to spend time saying why I don't like
each of the proposed terms. I certainly have things I don't 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 don't
feel that.
Softer words than "partition" would be "group", "bundle", "pool", and I
could live with any of them.


-----Original Message-----
From: Teas < <> > On Behalf
Of Kiran Makhijani
Sent: 11 August 2021 16:00
To: John E Drake <
<> >; Dongjie (Jimmy)
< <> >; Lizhenbin
< <> >;
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice

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 'IETF 
network slice service' and the 'IETF slice realization' 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 'slice aggregate' 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.


------ Original Message ------
From: "John E Drake" <
<> >
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" < <> >;
< <> >; "
<> " < <> >
Sent: 8/11/2021 5:38:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice 

>Snipped, comments inline.
>Yours Irrespectively,
>Juniper Business Use Only
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Dongjie (Jimmy) < <>
>>  Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:03 PM
>>  To: John E Drake < <> >;
Lizhenbin < <> >;
>> <> 
>>  Subject: RE: New term for the underlay construct used for slice
>>  [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
>>  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
>>  > > 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
>>  > 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:
>>  >
>>  > 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 don't think we need another term for what we are already
>>  > calling an 'IETF Network Slice Service'.  Adrian and I are considering
>>  > the term 'resource partition' to describe the partitioning of underlay
>>  > network resources in support of various overlay services such as IETF
>>  Slice Services.
>>  > This is congruent with the ideas expressed in:
>>  >
>>  > t-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segmen__;!!NEt6yMaO-
>>  gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFouj
>>  > xVlZ4r9F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-ROxL4C2_xNxEfwaXg$
>>  > ts-03.  What this allows one to build is an 'partitioned underlay
>>  > network topology'.
>>  [Jie] Agree that here we are talking about the term for the underlay
>>  "Resource partition" captures one of its key characteristics, while IMO
>>  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 'partitioned underlay
network topology'
>>  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
>>  >
>>  > [JD]  I think you have exceeded your remit.
>>  >
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > Best Regards,
>>  > > Robin
>>  > >
>>  > > _______________________________________________
>>  > > Teas mailing list
>>  > > <> 
>>  > >
>>  > > as
>>  > > __;!!N
>>  > > Et6yMaO-gk!Q0ycOf0ELxT6mG1GbnO4LSL-Q99J4uu7jfdUtBECaI-
>>  > > O08HqD31TGJciNjuxL2A$
>>  >
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > Teas mailing list
>>  > <> 
>>  >
>>  > __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFoujxVlZ4r9F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-
>>  ROxL4C2
>>  > _xNDCrPaNQ$
>Teas mailing list
> <> 

Teas mailing list <>

Teas mailing list <>