Re: [Teas] Drafts on slicing in SR networks

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Tue, 17 November 2020 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.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 90E643A0B60; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 01:12:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PmVGYwg4E5Rr; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 01:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B55DB3A0B9C; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 01:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml745-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Cb0X96x9Vz67F4f; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:10:17 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) by fraeml745-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.226) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:12:24 +0100
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:12:21 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:12:22 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "draft-peng-teas-network-slicing@ietf.org" <draft-peng-teas-network-slicing@ietf.org>, "draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org" <draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org>
CC: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Drafts on slicing in SR networks
Thread-Index: AQHWvAtGFLgwfa1xlU2/7aL1B72pfKnLFEuAgADuHZA=
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:12:22 +0000
Message-ID: <05165c5ed82647d08f400d0123ef6878@huawei.com>
References: <d2164756-fa54-b812-8fd9-81816c2833e1@labn.net> <DM5PR1901MB2150D5647BB72E0C9E1916B8FCE20@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR1901MB2150D5647BB72E0C9E1916B8FCE20@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.143]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jFxqhCwkb6WLNFSj6qUtlUzejpw>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Drafts on slicing in SR networks
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, 17 Nov 2020 09:12:33 -0000

[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>et>; 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