Re: [Teas] Drafts on slicing in SR networks

[adding SPRING chairs]

Hi,

Regarding the overlap between these two drafts: slicing in SR networks, should this also be discussed in SPRING WG? 

Also note that in SPRING there are in progress documents related to network slicing, e.g. draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments and draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn. The authors are encouraged to review those SPRING documents and see if there is anything to be added to them. Thanks.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tarek Saad
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:28 AM
> To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; draft-peng-teas-network-slicing@ietf.org;
> draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org
> Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Drafts on slicing in SR networks
> 
> Thank you Lou for reaching out.
> 
> Indeed, the solution that draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet proposes is path
> control agnostic and covers SR and non-SR.
> For SR-MPLS, draft-bestbar proposes a slice selector that can be in the form
> of a forwarding label (SR prefix-SID) or a global slice label that is carried in the
> MPLS packet.
> The global slice label as a slice selector offers some advantages with respect
> to scale that we have mentioned in the draft in section 5.2.1.
> 
> When the selector is derived from the forwarding label (SR prefix-SID), we do
> see some overlap between the two drafts. We would like to point out that
> there are also some key differences with respect to slice identification and
> slice per-hop QoS enforcement. We also notice that the slice identifier "AII"
> used in draft-peng-teas-network-slicing associates a dedicated topology for
> each slice. Since it is possible to slice the same topology into multiple slices,
> we think it is preferrable to decouple the AII as a slice identifier from the
> underlying topology identifier.
> 
> That said, we would like to reach out to the authors of
> draft-peng-teas-network-slicing and figure out a way to converge.
> We will report back the results of this discussion to the WG on the mailing
> list.
> 
> Regards,
> Tarek (for authors of draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet)
> 
> On 11/16/20, 6:25 AM, "Teas on behalf of Lou Berger"
> <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> 
>     Authors,
> 
>          Apologies for the lack of time to discuss your drafts in today's
>     TEAS WG meeting.  I note that both cover overlapping topics, i.e.,
>     slicing in SR networks.  Would it be possible/reasonable for the authors
>     to try to work together to come up with a joint proposal for
>     consideration by the WG?  I do note that one document is solely on SR
>     with the other covers SR and non-SR usage.
> 
>     Thank you,
> 
>     Lou (as Chair)
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Teas mailing list
>     Teas@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas