Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

"Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com> Tue, 01 September 2020 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <reza.rokui@nokia.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 18B103A0D5E for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 10:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.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 6XDk78sfQwAw for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 10:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam11on2105.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.236.105]) (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 1273D3A0D51 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 10:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=jFmCetDZZzp0sielrcoL2ZZGYIggkGv4uvnDEtsgEf7GjOOVTWQaHqHg25IGMyVhSQZPKSYokMHa9wyii0wLyIyVvlZWodG8ZOWAVDQfPNhiZGwWt2+HGXPeE6RABxYYWqXvyLP6QhMfk2Q3dJdfLzvjCgp9VlkO/5qV0BM70Dxn4U+Oi8GedsboaBkn2HE75Ix/wjkuw8uO/R1TcgEPIStjlDjSe/PIlDYYoihPyadv2fJR5BT+2VNdRXwih/m0nf56/wg03JnqYQEbzovA0nyY9JplrLnbez2xDUMCgpffa63Q+CidITzVoOH7m++cW2aCy63KVKbO7CH9ZPtyhw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=TcwFcC0u3A4EHvhRnQIKAELm8qWVOP6oX51hHszZ9Fg=; b=mB6ykLjKwAJ24kL1p3tciAxsbeYuDFEtLS45MamYGZda8shOaqFoMcVVLQrzwL5gKVc8HmWVZ+R/M5wb3xFGKdYQ/OMzKH2FVYC+VIXYQ9/bsFkJDDOWQG1rRFPF+blmT0OnnncGjRUjKKiyQ22YqWuAmZnWjkCc0/9kwrS4QLISwFDIUutZN7G3vdlEXRwe47reSHI+v5w8i8uM/gRQqpUmQcmk05DpqwKSowOo1GmPrYK+327sGRx1smZ4ynDLUdPpnvpgqKAGvCm9/eC2MTYsdDZcYfWLCgAhGgZmTrP8HYN3Sfg4c18nU3n5Pd5NfM7ZMbvc5m6s1OVfIBF1hQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nokia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nokia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nokia.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=TcwFcC0u3A4EHvhRnQIKAELm8qWVOP6oX51hHszZ9Fg=; b=c0HcGSc6lC51bWA4vvyV5VoGG+LjzzORRTJWlFEvo3U8Ubn86BsPQfdhJTMi9xRnjwNHjcHbPQPtpXldv26Uq9U53BXvSPbxl8I5BNVyktb1v+k9HeAEFE1l6mVvIAg/MDJJz6CwrY4FNE9c7E3+/xGBH9hgeYAdgpSDlG5QWHo=
Received: from DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:1ee::8) by DM5PR0801MB3669.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:7f::35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3326.25; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 17:57:28 +0000
Received: from DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b1d0:ed5:8e69:c77d]) by DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b1d0:ed5:8e69:c77d%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3348.015; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 17:57:28 +0000
From: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
To: Kiran Makhijani <kiranm@futurewei.com>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
CC: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice
Thread-Index: AQHWgIlbCoBKzX/qikaix+giLkS8QQ==
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 17:57:28 +0000
Message-ID: <E7F41401-6B79-4CCD-B625-DBBB5D068416@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.40.20081000
authentication-results: futurewei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;futurewei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [24.246.4.36]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3c24f029-3394-4d87-4bb8-08d84ea07db7
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR0801MB3669:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR0801MB3669A4A6DF8D220EA1EF57C99F2E0@DM5PR0801MB3669.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: lYY5L5sHBozS0mNntocy+7hbQOciofJUN4k49fvgDYjqx74q0mqzPyXVtUgL+fs5ZetnLdx7VSQE+bNE0DdTbRoGvunhlX1FLNNXWQROE4CJWItkM77RpdDPLTKUV7fHWjjqLfwo/+LZT+fi+oNWfieC/RNenmPX0yhBeh5QyN3nmJNacq9vIcmzP1FUF/agrUBY4dqZen/lWkBbT286cuFDfSbc1jhOCJZ4E80HcEmA5sTMjbomR3UvJZmwQHjaruxrd0evAhUaw3C22sOAiDW6NIrsKMGnr6JcdAR2N7lEwoN5qUDfvRXbMZS/1rEgE6lts7JKU8S+2Kd1gnMiVg==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(136003)(346002)(107886003)(36756003)(33656002)(2616005)(186003)(6506007)(316002)(6486002)(110136005)(53546011)(26005)(66946007)(6512007)(76116006)(66446008)(83380400001)(91956017)(8676002)(5660300002)(64756008)(478600001)(86362001)(66556008)(66476007)(8936002)(2906002)(4326008)(71200400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E7F414016B794CCDB625DBBB5D068416nokiacom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6PR08MB6331.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3c24f029-3394-4d87-4bb8-08d84ea07db7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Sep 2020 17:57:28.3216 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: wapyec3vnPJ9RUmmYkTN/GtQYVCSGyZP5RS8wtGw99mBOCcmS16oMpzkstUqvuzUDmSEQwaAb7KQdHbL9Z+d6Q==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR0801MB3669
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/hchr5FvW1qwwaEXCJQZG3s5Np0U>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice
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: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 17:57:32 -0000

All,

Thanks Kiran. As the co-author of the draft, I agree with Kiran’s response.

In summary, the main reason was to differentiate between “Network Slice” and its components which depends on the use case might be “RAN Slice”, “Core Slice” or “Transport Slice”.
As pointed out in email below, we on purpose removed “Network” from the name to make sure “Network Slice” and “Transport Slice” are clearly differentiated.

Please note that the 5G is one example of  network slicing. So, in the context of “ 5G Network Slice” we will have all of the three (i.e RAN, Core and Transport Slices).
If for example the use case is DCI, there is no RAN and Core slices and the “DCI Network Slice” will contain only “Transport  slices”.

Since the concept of “Transport slice” discuss at IETF is general and not just for 5G, the authors of the draft tried to generalize the idea and as a result the name “Transport Slice” was used.

Cheers,

Reza

From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Kiran Makhijani <kiranm@futurewei.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 11:35 AM
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>om>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

Hi Deborah,
It was a deliberate effort to avoid using term network slice – which is a broader concept of “End-to-end network slice” and everything is not IETF specific. By use of term transport, we are able to  (quite precisely) scope our work in the context of IP/MPLS technologies – things IETF concern with. Another advantage is clarity from the network slice concept in 3GPP which has already been defined and described in a particular way. I will find it confusing if we had to always explain that 3gpp-network slices are different than ietf-network slices. Because they are going to be different in functionality.

Transport slices capture only the connectivity specific details for things we refer to as transport networks. So far it has aligned will with ACTN, enhance VPN and other TE related work. We will not know how to specify, mange or onboard a RAN, Wireless or a vertical-centric functionality, so there is no point in making assumptions about them in our design and terminology.

-Kiran

From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:31 AM
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

Hi,
(speaking as an individual)

Picking up on Jari’s comment “sometimes people want to use labels that are a bit more imprecise, but I think we should strive to avoid such labels as much as we can”, can you give more background on the choice of the term “transport slice”?

I noted while you have text on the use of “transport” by 3GPP as specifying a very specific sub-network in the radio network (which excludes the handoff to the rest of the network), you referenced RFC5921 (MPLS-TP) for the term “transport”.

There was a long thread of mail on ACTN, RFC8453, to move away from the term “transport” to “TE networks” which was agreed to be more specific/appropriate for TEAS. Considering IETF is already using the term “network slicing” (including TEAS RFC8453) and 3GPP use of the term, I don’t understand the use of “transport” in this document.

Considering IETF already uses the term “network slice” and 3GPP uses the term (and all the industry SDOs), I am concerned we will be confusing the industry, especially as “transport” is an imprecise term for TEAS work. Is this work a subset and scoped only to the 3GPP “transport” cloud (and implied use of MPLS-TP)? Or is it planned to be generic (for all TE networks)?

Deborah
(speaking as individual)