Re: [Teas] Two more examples for draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Mon, 01 August 2022 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 E8C99C157B5F for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 05:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mFhLScr_3f4n for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EE02C14F721 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 05:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4LxHTn05rfz4whB; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 14:28:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1659356909; bh=tuESRqIVSeTSrBj7gBqTQTSLQo19qnPRcLLyy/9Xa00=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=KhIi5uEwwIBN991JRIQRyru3HHFYcCHHt1GlyEVpHtLAR0NqBN4bb7FJRQ7ySlxlq qrGk4rHr8uPGVqNOSNekevFnLIQVSAocqnwF2JV/zlPfsbKTJ1THoPw5QFN+4OEOTH l3DoA4jVV4H6ODpU4rD7Pg7tOa304hUCUNIvW62PPIsUW81BAdbc0TJgNZHJsSsV66 KLggncOtDnXL0nK2KYTMBJuYO8eSZeTet9ssSEst2uZ3E/PaouLSkmUk3iyTIZJWAn r8DfHzhAk8EkDnxmePEQZ5UAZx9ib5bMeU0/dYqK8mzv/Meoli9n3n3u77kuKFRSKW zuzU+bnoO26SQ==
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Two more examples for draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
Thread-Index: AdiktPbMrusyWRcoQYGA9pFk30bq1gA5wzjA
Content-Class:
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 12:28:28 +0000
Message-ID: <25988_1659356908_62E7C6EC_25988_60_1_0d0de4c015134d3b8587e3b8cf643682@orange.com>
References: <0c9901d8a4b4$fb618350$f22489f0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <0c9901d8a4b4$fb618350$f22489f0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_07222825-62ea-40f3-96b5-5375c07996e2_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_07222825-62ea-40f3-96b5-5375c07996e2_SetDate=2022-08-01T11:45:10Z; MSIP_Label_07222825-62ea-40f3-96b5-5375c07996e2_Method=Privileged; MSIP_Label_07222825-62ea-40f3-96b5-5375c07996e2_Name=unrestricted_parent.2; MSIP_Label_07222825-62ea-40f3-96b5-5375c07996e2_SiteId=90c7a20a-f34b-40bf-bc48-b9253b6f5d20; MSIP_Label_07222825-62ea-40f3-96b5-5375c07996e2_ActionId=82eb4f1d-1bc9-4bd8-b5c0-776c05c7a5d9; MSIP_Label_07222825-62ea-40f3-96b5-5375c07996e2_ContentBits=0
x-originating-ip: [10.115.27.53]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jxJi90jLKSVdPl2pT3AlWyWFsww>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Two more examples for draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:28:40 -0000

Hi Adrian,

Thanks.

The centralized approach used in A.6 (particularly in Figure 13) is one way to stitch slices. That approach is suitable when the underlying domains belong to the same administrative entity or when the "coordinator" can assure the overall slice (e.g., identify intermediate root causes, react to localized deterioration signals, etc.). In cases where distinct entities are involved, the bilateral mode would be more convenient because it offers a clear responsibility scope for each involved domain and also offers means to intermediate domains to react to upstream failures/deterioration symptoms in order to satisfy the slice objectives (e.g., make use of multihoming). The bilateral mode is similar to what is depicted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5160#section-4.1. 

In a bilateral mode, the slice services that will lead to the stitched slices would be between these service attachment points: 
* SDP1-SDP2 (ctrl of nw1)
* SDPX-SDP2 (ctrl of nw2)
* SDPU-SDP2 (ctrl of nw3)
* SDPS-SDP2 (ctrl of nw4)

The flow of the service requests would be as follows: 
             
(ctrl of nw1)==>(ctrl of nw2)==>(ctrl of nw3)==>(ctrl of nw4)
  | Device        | Device        | Device        | Device
  | Config        | Config        | Config        | Config
  v               v               v               v

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> De la part de Adrian Farrel
> Envoyé : dimanche 31 juillet 2022 10:10
> À : teas@ietf.org
> Objet : [Teas] Two more examples for draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-
> slices
> 
> Hi,
> 
> During the meeting at IETF-114, Lou suggested that we might make
> some efforts to include a discussion of hierarchical and
> concatenated IETF Network Slices within the framework draft.
> 
> We already have some text that notes that these approaches fall
> within the architecture, so probably nothing new needed there. But
> the Appendix provides a place to give simple examples of various
> deployment options (without getting into the details of
> realisation).
> 
> So, here is some proposed text.
> 
> Let me know if it causes any of you a problem.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> ====
> 
> A.5.  Hierarchical Composition of Network Slices
> 
>    As mentioned in Section 4.3, IETF Network Slices may be
> arranged
>    hierarchically.  There is nothing special of novel about such
> an
>    arrangement, and it models the hierarchical arrangement of
> services
>    of virtual networks in many other environments.
> 
>    As shown in Figure 9, an Operator's Controller (NSC) that is
>    requested to provide an IETF Network Slice for a customer may,
> in
>    turn, request an IETF Network Slice from another carrier.  The
>    Operator's NSC may manage and control the underlay IETF Network
> Slice
>    by modifying the requested connectivity constructs and changing
> the
>    SLAs.  The customer is entirely unaware of the hierarchy of
> slices,
>    and the underlay carrier is entirely unaware of how its slice
> is
>    being used.
> 
>    This "stacking" of IETF Network Slice constructs is no
> different to
>    the way virtual networks may be arranged.
> 
>                --------------
>               | Network      |
>               | Slice        |
>               | Orchestrator |
>                --------------
>                 | IETF Network Slice
>                 | Service Request
>                 |                    Customer view
>             ....|................................
>                -v----------------    Operator view
>               |Controller        |
>               |  ------------    |
>               | | IETF       |   |
>               | | Network    |---|---
>               | | Slice      |   |   |
>               | | Controller |   |   |
>               | | (NSC)      |   |   |
>               |  ------------    |   |
>                ------------------    |
>                                      | IETF Network Slice
>                                      | Service Request
>                                      |
>             .........................|.....................
>                            ----------v-------    Carrier view
>                           |Controller        |
>                           |  ------------    |
>                           | | IETF       |   |
>                           | | Network    |   |--> Virtual Network
>                           | | Slice      |   |
>                           | | Controller |   |
>                           | | (NSC)      |   |
>                           |  ------------    |
>                       ....|  | Network       |............
>                           |  | Configuration |   Underlay Network
>                           |  v               |
>                           |  ------------    |
>                           | | Network    |   |
>                           | | Controller |   |
>                           | | (NC)       |   |
>                           |  ------------    |
>                            ------------------
>                             | Device Configuration
>                             v
> 
>      Figure 9: Example Hierarchical Arrangement of IETF Network
> Slices
> 
>    In this case, the network hierarchy may also be provided to
> bridge
>    connectivity between networks as shown in Figure 10.  Here, the
> an
>    IETF Network Slice may be requested of the lower layer network
> to
>    provide the desired connectivity constructs to supplement the
>    connectivity in the higher layer network where this
> connectivity may
>    be presented as a virtual link.
> 
>                   CE1                                       CE2
>                    |                                         |
>                    |                                         |
>                   _|_________________________________________|_
>                  ( :                                         : )
>                 (  :..............             ..............:  )
>                  (_______________:_____________:_______________)
>                                __|_____________|__
>                               (  :             :  )
>                              (   :.............:   )
>                               (___________________)
> 
>         Figure 10: Example Hierarchical Arrangement of IETF
> Network
>                        Slices to Bridge Connectivity
> 
> A.6.  Horizontal Composition of Network Slices
> 
>    It may be that end-to-end connectivity is achieved using a set
> of
>    cooperating networks as described in Section 4.3.  For example,
> there
>    may be multiple inter-connected networks that provide the
> required
>    connectivity as shown in Figure 11.  The networks may utilize
>    different technologies and may be under separate administrative
>    control.
> 
>                   CE1                                       CE2
>                    |                                         |
>                   SDP1                                      SDP2
>                    |                                         |
>                   _|____       ______       ______       ____|_
>                  (      )     (      )     (      )     (      )
>                 (        )---(        )---(        )---(        )
>                  (______)     (______)     (______)     (______)
> 
>         Figure 11: Example Customer View of Inter-connected
> Networks
>                       Provide End-to-End Connectivity
> 
>    In this scenario, the customer (represented by CE1 and CE2) may
>    request an IETF Network Slice service connecting the CEs.  The
>    customer considers the SDPs at the edge (shown as SDP1 and SDP2
> in
>    Figure 11) and might not be aware of how the end-to-end
> connectivity
>    is composed.
> 
>    However, because the various networks may be of different
>    technologies and under separate administrative control, the
> networks
>    are sliced individually and coordination is necessary to
> deliver the
>    desired connectivity.  The network to network interfaces (NNIs)
> are
>    present as SDPs for the IETF Network Slices in each network so
> that
>    each network is individually sliced.  In the example in Figure
> 11,
>    this is illustrated as network 1 (N/w1) being sliced between
> SDP1 and
>    SDPX, N/w2 being sliced between SDPY and SDPU, etc.  The
> coordination
>    activity involves binding the SDPs, and hence the connectivity
>    constructs, to achieve end-to-end connectivity.  In this way,
> simple
>    and complex end-to-end connectivity can be achieved with a
> variety of
>    connectivity constructs in the IETF Network Slices of different
>    networks "stitched" together.
> 
>               CE1
> CE2
>                |
> |
>               SDP1
> SDP2
>                |
> |
>               _|____          ______          ______
> ____|_
>              (      ) SDPX   (      ) SDPU   (      ) SDPS   (
> )
>             (  N/w1  )------(  N/w2  )------(  N/w3  )------(
> N/w4  )
>              (______)   SDPY (______)   SDPV (______)   SDPT
> (______)
> 
> 
>       Figure 12: Example Delivery of An End-to-End IETF Network
> Slice
>                        with Inter- connected Networks
> 
>    The controller/coordinator relationship is shown in Figure 13.
> 
>           --------------
>          | Network      |
>          | Slice        |
>          | Orchestrator |
>           --------------
>            | IETF Network Slice
>            | Service Request
>            |                    Customer view
>        ....|................................
>           -v----------------    Coordinator view
>          |Coordinator       |
>          |                  |
>           ------------------
>            |             |_________________
>            |                               |
>            |                               |
>        ....|.......................    ....|.....................
>           -v--------------                -v--------------
>          |Controller1     | Operator1    |Controller2     |
> Operator2
>          |  ------------  |              |  ------------  |
>          | | IETF       | |              | | IETF       | |
>          | | Network    | |              | | Network    | |
>          | | Slice      | |              | | Slice      | |
>          | | Controller | |              | | Controller | |
>          | | (NSC)      | |              | | (NSC)      | |
>          |  ------------  |              |  ------------  |
>      ....|  | Network     |............  |  | Network
> |............
>          |  | Config      | Underlay1    |  | Config      |
> Underlay2
>          |  v             |              |  v             |
>          |  ------------  |              |  ------------  |
>          | | Network    | |              | | Network    | |
>          | | Controller | |              | | Controller | |
>          | | (NC)       | |              | | (NC)       | |
>          |  ------------  |              |  ------------  |
>           ----------------                ----------------
>            | Device Configuration
>            v
> 
>      Figure 13: Example Relationship of IETF Network Slice
> Coordination
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.