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

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Eric and I have reviewed the Definitions draft, the email thread with the subject line: Network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00, and the RFCs referenced in emails on that thread - 3985, 4110, 4026, 4664, and 8309, and we would like to propose that in the Definitions draft we replace 'network slice endpoint' with 'CE' and 'network slice realization endpoint' with 'PE', that we reference  RFCs  3985, 4110, 4026, 4664, and 8309, and that we  replace the current figure in Endpoint section with several figures, which show connectivity constructs and which are consistent with these RFCs.  We would also like to replace 'consumer' with 'customer', add 'attachment circuit', and add a new term, viz, 'IETF Network Slice Service', whose definition is a set of CEs, a set of connectivity constructs (MP2MP, P2MP, P2P, etc.) between subsets of these CEs and an SLO for each CE sending to each connectivity construct.

As an aside, the Endpoint section of the Definitions draft uses the bulk of its prose enumerating what its endpoints are not.  Per Yakov, since there are a potentially infinite number of things which its endpoints are not, this is futile and we would like to remove that prose.

Yours Irrespectively,

Eric and John


Juniper Business Use Only

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:59 AM
> To: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-
> definition-00
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Indeed. That's need to be fixed.
> 
> As we are on the terminology, I do also suggest that the draft is updated to
> adhere to RFC8309. Given the recursiveness discussed in the draft, having geo-
> coordinates interfaces is also confusing. Inspiring from RFC8309 would make
> more sense.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : mardi 16
> > février 2021 17:44 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Objet : Re: [Teas]
> > network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
> > network-slice-definition-00
> >
> > I would be happy to use CE and PE.  I would also be happy to use
> > completely different words.  The current diagram and terminology makes
> > this very confusing, and leads to problems.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > On 2/16/2021 11:39 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Re-,
> > >
> > > Please see inline.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Med
> > >
> > >> -----Message d'origine-----
> > >> De : Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Joel M.
> > >> Halpern
> > >> Envoyé : mardi 16 février 2021 17:12 À : [e-mail] Objet : Re:
> > >> [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
> > >> network-slice-definition-00
> > >>
> > >> The document is not about the request from the external customer
> > (the
> > >> request for the end-to-end network slice). It is about the request
> > >> from other orchestration systems to the IETF Network Slice
> > management
> > >> systems.
> > >
> > > [Med] ... which is still behaving as the customer role.
> > >
> > >   Yes, those systems need to know where they intent to
> > >> utilize the IETF network slice.  But the IETF network slice does
> > not
> > >> need to know about that.
> > >
> > > [Med] This is what I fail to see. The orchestrator has an internal
> > vision that is not available to the entity asking for a slice. These
> > nodes are not even known to the "other orchestration systems" when
> > asking for a slice.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> In particular, when we get to talking about configuring the IETF
> > >> Network Slice properties, the edge (ingress) that the IETF Network
> > >> Slice controller controls (and corresponding egress) is what needs
> > to
> > >> be provisioned.
> > >
> > > [Med] Agree, but that is a distinct phase.
> > >
> > > BTW, ingress/egress are as a function of the traffic direction. A
> > node (PE) may behave as both ingress and egress for the same slice.
> > >
> > >> It is possible that on the egress side there needs to be
> > information
> > >> about how to deliver the traffic externally.
> > >
> > > [Med] Agree. That node does not need to be visible (known in
> > advance) to the entity that will consume the corresponding slice.
> > >
> > >    But that would not be
> > >> in terms of end-points since from the perspective of the IETF
> > Network
> > >> Slice, on the egress that is not an endpoint of anything.
> > >
> > > [Med] I agree that "endpoint" is confusing. "Customer Node/Edge" vs
> > "Provider Edge" are my favorite here.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Yours,
> > >> Joel
> > >>
> > >> On 2/16/2021 11:05 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >>> Hi Joel,
> > >>>
> > >>> I disagree with this note. I do think that both flavors of
> > >> "endpoint" should be included in the draft.
> > >>>
> > >>> >From the customer standpoint, a slice request cannot be
> > >> characterized by elements not visible to the customer. The scope
> > of a
> > >> requested slice can only be characterized between nodes that are
> > >> known to the requestor. This is usually called, CE.
> > >>>
> > >>> The mapping between a CE and a network device (typically, a PE)
> > is
> > >> a process that is internal to the slice provider.
> > >>>
> > >>> The CE-PE link cannot be systematically excluded as some specific
> > >> behaviors may need to be enforced in the CE-PE link. Think about a
> > >> slice that is implemented by means of a PE-based VPN and which
> > >> requires some specific routing + QoS policies at the CE-PE link.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Med
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> ____
> > _
> > > ___________________________________________________
> > >
> > > 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!N
> Et6yMaO-gk!TrdpM67-tg4psF0dnG7jBV9LisKHxO_oCNxmQXrJhY-
> B6MFchY8gBvvb8CNl408$