Re: [Teas] Unify Terminologies for Network Slicing

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 09 March 2021 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 095773A0E63; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:49:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 r9MN_sp0c5RZ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65B523A0E60; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DvylQ0M1Xz1nvft; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:49:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1615301346; bh=7eZPds5UoSaAgQcXqJsoSBV8U9viE/BPe76DXy4xglA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Jh6UM+07rwnydLRC3zH6PaYGAOhe3fhufWwL4gZDak9PCx9iXu/HCmpoLuwjZ5oqi iJYBtCeXLXp0VOOq8H/MhTaMnmsiJ6Pw+1AahD0BE6kOzpbGX9Qj3IDB7Fk2hIhW0V tXN+5RJiuuW3BaysIQ/EJYO6+LUJ32BXQdVzXmw4=
X-Quarantine-ID: <BlctFjcxv2M4>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DvylN6tnhz1nvfn; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:49:04 -0800 (PST)
To: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D93A2730D@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <3dab0961-afab-653c-c6f5-81b09aadbc94@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 09:49:03 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D93A2730D@dggemm512-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kMae_jzO8iS0TshPMbV1GhtaV-Y>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Unify Terminologies for Network Slicing
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, 09 Mar 2021 14:49:09 -0000

At least the bestbar draft carries an id for what we call there a slice 
aggregate.  That is, an id at the granularity needed for affecting 
behavior, not an id for identifying the end-to-end network slice or even 
the individual IETF Network Slice.

It is not clear to me that the packet as visible at every point in the 
network needs an identifier for the end-to-end network slice.

And it is clear that we need to avoid unifying terminology that 
represents different things.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/9/2021 6:19 AM, Lizhenbin wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> All following drafts has the similar idea to carry an ID in the 
> forwarding data plane. The id is to represent the network slice. But 
> there are different definitions for the ID (VTN ID, Slice ID, Slice 
> Selector/Slice Aggregate ID, etc. ) in these drafts. At the same time, 
> the slice has been defined as the north bound interface as the service. 
> I suggest that the terminology must be unified in the TEAS WG firstly. 
> Or else it will cause much confusion and mess which also have much 
> effect on the work in other WGs.
> 
> TEAS WG:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability/
> 
> MPLS WG:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id/
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id/
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa/
> 
> 6MAN WG:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id/
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id/>
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>