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

Shunsuke Homma <s.homma0718@gmail.com> Sat, 06 March 2021 16:15 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 B2B673A0C2E for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 08:15:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=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 RGvxxBcT-Bli for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 08:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (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 6BE8E3A0C28 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 08:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id a7so5323621iok.12 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 08:15:29 -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=cQmxIrkJLkDdD6d9NNeWAgIAZ8FMmjCPOQPEIRJqYIc=; b=W03gKsjeAdYTyZodXDjjT9pdZl0qmjxPhZoxo2YBhFuT9vZKJsz3F1LUrGGzq+/p9S zXmzZMVytwi4iaV+C9lAF9Pl1Ika2zpyeeHnKJDfAQu+v/Xhyj3gg6NpwfIblZG38gHA AxIYdvTZBSyQu7vJ87076sGQBzQ6LIZm7obKLYm4aOQfOIw3mLvkWVgr0lufORfObMqh nHpnA1Qgxjur3sRwCK7gBEosZzXHknreE2KPpGnOAMq8gtMP6haoZa3TM7tVnGaVwQHG kR3g6X6vMfBKFISxn2c5cee6AszY6XVuVR111gYQHkO4t+BxyzmKupT6FagaM+4Mubnb CA4A==
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=cQmxIrkJLkDdD6d9NNeWAgIAZ8FMmjCPOQPEIRJqYIc=; b=NXaEF9HUCyl0qWwJXJF/NrcARqq2zT0iXwbNyxGfdwW1Os2S99Q6Yoz5pYDNxjF6SM B2VYPFtl318ALbUXX9nQ3eO2oFgUY69rBckIjIb/AuHgYzXIsDoonptL31H7mhwGULM3 81Tbud5Gh1VtzRZCu0AVCVNv8LDg3hplFlZuUusW22nPWTRjjgOzZX3qf4bJhvCRQlRv l7GaSD45UgeEwYbQdWtV495uZF7Qt0WFWY7AnWvHWmqbk30Llp7Jps/sn2Izx71l7duX V556JcETT4lCwoeJ+Y2CuHE10e15L7reDtBUFhneRjLiU+R8E2CEV/l/CcFfvkOqib9G bjZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532EniRNM/5jsomGZahPZhIv9PkUvXQfMeAI6qTbZo+/f+Q4SR9O HFNoqfePcswWO16v6VL2Y9SuPSBEumLIObnek8M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwrRX6FmmavtqPFfdY/8CjcH80q6eF3FAjwlikbL1EID1PhsSqDfeQfNIA7FGMBmlx2N8+3j+5lxuTtAd70VhI=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:c017:: with SMTP id y23mr15718698jai.3.1615047328044; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 08:15:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAGU6MPfSDGGx3aRO6Vi1vFpS2k9yOM3ACsUb=jVPQB6-aehWgA@mail.gmail.com> <c2811489-0b88-ad7a-4374-555e2ef3032c@joelhalpern.com> <5592_1614855931_6040BEFB_5592_11_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F56BF@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <af87c5e0-7766-24f0-70b0-8c517a77d7e2@joelhalpern.com> <CAGU6MPdQ4WtqiDoZ8nswkyjEQEtMgXyRTvdBUwSY+7=D2cp8=g@mail.gmail.com> <9646_1614938855_604202E7_9646_42_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F91E8@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAGU6MPcT=ARdyse1dB2QqiSZZXykmXNEz1zXL5dd1H4qXu6LNQ@mail.gmail.com> <9743_1614966184_60426DA8_9743_54_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F96D6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <9743_1614966184_60426DA8_9743_54_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F96D6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Shunsuke Homma <s.homma0718@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2021 01:15:17 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGU6MPep5fRrjzU72nqU=Qa65u=Ykh0zfmO76Sr9W3qiO9v88Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000489d5705bce0829b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ipCezJZxt6R5625K763p93vODZ0>
Subject: Re: [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: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 16:15:32 -0000

Hi Med,

Please see inline.

2021年3月6日(土) 2:43 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>:

> Re-,
>
>
>
> I’m not sure I agree with your point on “traditional terms” and the
> “perception that a slice is a type of VPN”. Please see, for example,
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XKgkDJBvkISZw0VHDDH8_tL8SRA/
> asking for text in the documents to explain that slice!=VPN.
>
>
>
[SH] Sorry, it was just my impression. I personally agree with your
thoughts described in the mail archive.


> I agree with you that the elaboration of the definition of "IETF Network
> Slice Service" is needed. Actually, we don’t even have one in the documents
> :-)
>
>
>
[SH] Fine.


> From a service perspective, I don’t think that slicing comes with unique
> aspects that would revolutionize how services (including brokering,
> transit, wholesale, etc.) are modeled.
>
>
>
[SH] Perhaps, slicing is not something new from service perspectives. But
I'm not sure if existing models are sufficient for IETF network slice. It
will be clarified in the progress of elaborating the definition of "IETF
Network Slice Service".


> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Shunsuke Homma [mailto:s.homma0718@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 5 mars 2021 17:26
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> *Cc :* teas@ietf.org
> *Objet :* Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>
>
>
> Thank you for the clarifications. I can understand them and I won't say
> that PE/CE/AC can't be applied to IETF Network Slice usages.
>
> I assume that this mismatch is brought by different perceptions about what
> network slice. Many people seem to think that network slice is a type of
> VPN service, and hope to use the traditional terms. I see network slice as
> an aggregate of resources and technologies. Also, I expect that network
> slices will be used by vertical industries in B2B2X models, and thus I need
> a more abstracted model.
>
> In addition, regarding the term "IETF Network Slice Service", I think
> elaboration of the definition would be needed. For example, is this service
>  from whose point of view? In B2B2X models, I think what a middle B wants
> to see will be the range where a network slice is actually realized. Also,
> end customers will never recognize an IETF network slice exists there as
> well as other network services. So, I'm not sure if the service endpoint
> which is different from the network slice endpoint should be defined.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Shunsuke
>
>
>
>
>
> 2021年3月5日(金) 19:07 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>:
>
> Hi Shunsuke,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Shunsuke Homma [mailto:s.homma0718@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 4 mars 2021 18:13
> *À :* Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
> *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>om>;
> teas@ietf.org
> *Objet :* Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
>
>
>
> Thanks Med and Joel.
>
> I agree that CE can be an endpoint of IETF Network Slice in managed CE
> case, and in other cases, IETF Network Slice is PE to PE.
>
> And this is a reason why I'm hesitating to use the term CE/PE as the
> endpoint of IETF Network Slice. If endpoints may vary depending on underlay
> implementation (e.g., whether CE is managed or not), a logical identifier
> independent of underlay would be needed to simplify network slice model.
> (In my understanding, it was NSE.)
>
>
>
> [Med] CE/PE terms are independent of the underlay. They simply delimit the
> scope of what is visible to a slice customer vs. the internal view of the
> slice provider.
>
> Also, I understand the concept of "IETF Network Slice Service",  but I
> have some questions. In case that CE is not managed, can we call the
> connection between CEs which includes uncontrollable section IETF Network
> Slice Service?
>
>
>
> [Med] It is still a service because it is where the service is delivered. For unmanaged CEs, the ** Guarantee Scope ** does not include the CE itself but may include the maintenance of attachment circuit if a physical link, for example, is also provided and maintained by the slice provider. It may also include the activation of specific protocols over that circuit by the slice provider. These considerations (activation means, service assurance) should be covered in the slice agreement.
>
>
> One more, in the wholesale model, a slice broker may create an E2E network
> slice by combining slices provided from several network providers. In
> such a case, from a broker, where are endpoints in each network provider's
> domain?
>
>
>
> [Med] The slice service will be delimited by the peer PEs (that will
> behave as CEs in the proposed model), while the slice itself is delimited
> by local PEs.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Shunsuke
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
>