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

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Fri, 05 March 2021 17:43 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 930AB3A28E2 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 09:43:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.117
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.117 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ESMgkDLwDvwD for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 09:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73CD53A28DF for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 09:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) by opfednr21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DsZp06hhbz5vYv; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:43:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1614966184; bh=veXAGUt0SJMC+NUiforHqlVYz2U9H9G4SaIy26pXHNw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=IpJwoVSM1eHX3ZXEq11qYNkAtoa/cW98h6x58gKdv9J1F+FIdxqHU56ETegGZyoyU wZBhGajf36gseZCzs1S9Go/+0Gj803zHC8uoCziEb6YBZKKAjBhsE/U409INNOmH/W RL1fQ0EYsAdBpcBT6D5dNyPluLzqja83t9YVl35VZGWauO3WRQ/7xrn4AjhwZTPDqM l7+M/SNq4I8NV2twiH0RQUjp/3xJuyPZ+II0Ph+GDmIIX2c/Y19w9p5LxNfnN9hv20 lwxrAThcyPMgSKonAfhNPZGe6mVEiGBd3OR7mqqmJjLO42LbDfeLmkw6XAkDfgwwzO 7/SNjVl0IhTRg==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.26]) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DsZp05tVGzDq7Q; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:43:04 +0100 (CET)
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Shunsuke Homma <s.homma0718@gmail.com>
CC: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
Thread-Index: AQHXEdxLaUhlfexA00K6oiNY4UbGMKp1pf4Q
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 17:43:04 +0000
Message-ID: <9743_1614966184_60426DA8_9743_54_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F96D6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAGU6MPfSDGGx3aRO6Vi1vFpS2k9yOM3ACsUb=jVPQB6-aehWgA@mail.gmail.com> <c2811489-0b88-ad7a-4374-555e2ef3032c@joelhalpern.com> <5592_1614855931_6040BEFB_5592_11_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F56BF@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <af87c5e0-7766-24f0-70b0-8c517a77d7e2@joelhalpern.com> <CAGU6MPdQ4WtqiDoZ8nswkyjEQEtMgXyRTvdBUwSY+7=D2cp8=g@mail.gmail.com> <9646_1614938855_604202E7_9646_42_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F91E8@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAGU6MPcT=ARdyse1dB2QqiSZZXykmXNEz1zXL5dd1H4qXu6LNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGU6MPcT=ARdyse1dB2QqiSZZXykmXNEz1zXL5dd1H4qXu6LNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315F96D6OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kzI1_rLLgAWhfXZAvck0Ig4pJnI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 17:43:09 -0000

Re-,

I’m not sure I agree with your point on “traditional terms” and the “perception that a slice is a type of VPN”. Please see, for example, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XKgkDJBvkISZw0VHDDH8_tL8SRA/ asking for text in the documents to explain that slice!=VPN.

I agree with you that the elaboration of the definition of "IETF Network Slice Service" is needed. Actually, we don’t even have one in the documents :-)

From a service perspective, I don’t think that slicing comes with unique aspects that would revolutionize how services (including brokering, transit, wholesale, etc.) are modeled.

Cheers,
Med

De : Shunsuke Homma [mailto:s.homma0718@gmail.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 5 mars 2021 17:26
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc : teas@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Thank you for the clarifications. I can understand them and I won't say that PE/CE/AC can't be applied to IETF Network Slice usages.

I assume that this mismatch is brought by different perceptions about what network slice. Many people seem to think that network slice is a type of VPN service, and hope to use the traditional terms. I see network slice as an aggregate of resources and technologies. Also, I expect that network slices will be used by vertical industries in B2B2X models, and thus I need a more abstracted model.

In addition, regarding the term "IETF Network Slice Service", I think elaboration of the definition would be needed. For example, is this service  from whose point of view? In B2B2X models, I think what a middle B wants to see will be the range where a network slice is actually realized. Also, end customers will never recognize an IETF network slice exists there as well as other network services. So, I'm not sure if the service endpoint which is different from the network slice endpoint should be defined.

Regards,

Shunsuke


2021年3月5日(金) 19:07 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>:
Hi Shunsuke,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Shunsuke Homma [mailto:s.homma0718@gmail.com<mailto:s.homma0718@gmail.com>]
Envoyé : jeudi 4 mars 2021 18:13
À : Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com<mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>>
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Objet : Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Thanks Med and Joel.

I agree that CE can be an endpoint of IETF Network Slice in managed CE case, and in other cases, IETF Network Slice is PE to PE.

And this is a reason why I'm hesitating to use the term CE/PE as the endpoint of IETF Network Slice. If endpoints may vary depending on underlay implementation (e.g., whether CE is managed or not), a logical identifier independent of underlay would be needed to simplify network slice model. (In my understanding, it was NSE.)

[Med] CE/PE terms are independent of the underlay. They simply delimit the scope of what is visible to a slice customer vs. the internal view of the slice provider.

Also, I understand the concept of "IETF Network Slice Service",  but I have some questions. In case that CE is not managed, can we call the connection between CEs which includes uncontrollable section IETF Network Slice Service?


[Med] It is still a service because it is where the service is delivered. For unmanaged CEs, the ** Guarantee Scope ** does not include the CE itself but may include the maintenance of attachment circuit if a physical link, for example, is also provided and maintained by the slice provider. It may also include the activation of specific protocols over that circuit by the slice provider. These considerations (activation means, service assurance) should be covered in the slice agreement.

One more, in the wholesale model, a slice broker may create an E2E network slice by combining slices provided from several network providers. In such a case, from a broker, where are endpoints in each network provider's domain?

[Med] The slice service will be delimited by the peer PEs (that will behave as CEs in the proposed model), while the slice itself is delimited by local PEs.

Regards,

Shunsuke


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.