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

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed, 03 March 2021 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 43B173A1333 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 05:56:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.117
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.117 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.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 TuyfiCu0KagU for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 05:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (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 7B8D03A1345 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 05:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.5]) by opfedar21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DrFsx6vYRz7tW5; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:56:53 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1614779814; bh=yfZo68Gy2LWn98x9u7Nax0woIf/HoSEqT8mapAdBwnU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=WVD5/aXPFP+3PVJI4cE1ixbgs8eDLuEk0DIF0vBmFZchx9ii4pTe6k9q0vtpGFdw0 cSEQbnXNhraI2J4W45eUpTQ95orFkl1h16KngYXVseszXt1xa4f+qKm+kCGlPmWxFw Hx1PPppjWpFacx9E2mqJ6QZomQ7ypSt0+eXeNzCQzDc+jEL6+KFGP/y9P/4VeFYi+I JeIhsiME9o/jUptNI9pIQmedK2eQ0mWOYl+S3940BQ9/AfqVEkST8VSysDgUSGiUTe uL3uYlxFV9jnt1t1kQ1hCQ0zgARJBQ5fdOCCO23Shp0qUaN75sWBBF+XGOvO5yZGpS +dSM4495w6wgA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.54]) by opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DrFsx5vwqzCqkd; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:56:53 +0100 (CET)
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: CE-based Network Slice RE: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
Thread-Index: AdcQNQ3lmo6qhve1QxShf2Bkb9w2kQ==
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:56:52 +0000
Message-ID: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/gTr-9AB24-fjUtW-b-J1t-vWmkI>
Subject: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: 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 13:56:57 -0000

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:teas-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Adrian Farrel
Envoyé : jeudi 25 février 2021 11:52
À : '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>rg>; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)' <reza.rokui@nokia.com>om>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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.