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

Shunsuke Homma <> Thu, 04 March 2021 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E813A0B93 for <>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:25:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4sc8AUb5nAte for <>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:25:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE8953A0B92 for <>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:25:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o9so12918060iow.6 for <>; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 16:25:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XO54uF81doBoRUWhq1fkWn3XspeSUCp1yWUnATHP1Sg=; b=WpW8E0fJm5NUumK5RnWAbSUJKz+i3f71+6PGZTiEy/j9/4bPaz4qceG60JmIEhX89T UvqSX2lAAWeZmbxxSM+WeO/H2zqf3KZ2cPLWMOguhTUZ04/bOEAJcbrCkbsEnVoCqkUs AayYYNTIJx9348/Ot3yzWyRJAMuxha6U2fKoeGhjnHSQS2OVLQHZk+sqeKuj3oowS3ny se/yLmQGjwSXhE0ml0QNipHgshM8QLSPRoqZnnMy0OAeRcaz3WrDbFRHJVXYwWGUdGYL d54xbofiKpTwpz48qtJcfMsCTy2H1yMEb8C8tc6JfC7RJPYcKHK3gtUSpJgN7MYwEqDF 3RAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XO54uF81doBoRUWhq1fkWn3XspeSUCp1yWUnATHP1Sg=; b=gOibV6HPLuD1oAtzIQtp2mH4U92jdtDIqB6OcM7ZFicgCFCeQ4pEwwOTYKDeph+WFH 5vmCCb9KY9/rJGhruP5Cng+qvZ0wW2sB9fqUBlVI68X5/IUNunzrSksY+P5yyP/OaD98 BSK4xjBhppjUu1mDUA2FuBpPGFHzBNcKAk1HEOslC1+ehv6UJyyF54UuRMEXoezBJ+v0 AxWg4PuKFx7tDLz141GSNp6galMvyelExgJB2M54qzlmvwESHLNDyD3GM/cnJwLmn0u5 LyhP5V4QoFtG9sZdKJSK4ed3e5kG+NxeW2u4KrI2ikOWWpohI+2SO2HTG/1rLqkQpULH Mq5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530xZkBhn0EayJ9RQrzyopbUOmuxuZwRKoRl+NZoeDTyOm6x2drx 9o/N3OEhb3Q4sVQDUZyp3A+Aegt+Kv4rpivAwdE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxUSF0BwRvnBce3BRYOTBWt3gxoHE95NYA15SI9ZNUVBjtZTA4LaTQ1b8O/bX4ot/ZY64QKFAZGwol71CdobRM=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9913:: with SMTP id x19mr1472874iol.201.1614817539113; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 16:25:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <5411_1614779813_603F95A5_5411_22_6_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315E7FA9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Shunsuke Homma <>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 09:25:28 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cbd15005bcab01e3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] CE-based Network Slice RE: network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 00:25:43 -0000

Hi Med,

I think it's an important discussion. I'd like to clarify the range which
should be managed as an IETF network slice. In my understanding, CE will be
a slice consumer's end-host or an endpoint of an opposite network slice,
and it will be generally out of control of IETF network slice. As you
described, there may be cases where CE makes marking on traffic and PE
allocate it to appropriate slice based on the mark, but I think the
arrangement between CE and PE will be done by controller/orchestrator
higher than IETF Network Slice Controller. In other words, a necessary
policy is set to PE from higher controller/orchestrator, and IETF network
slice can work independently of whether the CE is slice-aware or not.

So my question is which is appropriate as the range of IETF network slice.

1. it is always between CE and CE,
2. it is always between PE and PE,
3. it is basically from PE to PE, and sometimes between CE and CE (e.g., in
case that CE is slice-aware,)

# From a network operator or slice provider aspect, I'd like to know
whether SLA/SLO between CE and PE must  be assured.



2021年3月3日(水) 22:57 <>om>:

> Re-,
> Thanks Adrian for raising this point.
> My take is that we can’t discard it by design. Take the example of
> stitched slices where packets are marked by the CE + that marking is
> trusted by the PE to graft them to the appropriate network slice. Likewise,
> a hierarchical design where an aggregate slice trusts the marking of the
> upper slice to identify how to map between the levels. Such trust may be
> justified under specific deployment contexts.
> Cheers,
> Med
> *De :* Teas [] *De la part de* Adrian Farrel
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 25 février 2021 11:52
> *À :* 'Young Lee' <>om>; 'Luis M. Contreras' <
> *Cc :* 'Joel M. Halpern' <>om>;; 'Eric
> Gray' <>om>; 'John E Drake' <jdrake=
>>gt;; 'Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)' <
>>gt;; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <
> *Objet :* Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00
> [...]
> ... but we have to ask ourselves carefully whether we **really** want the
> CE-based approach in our network slicing:
> -          What are the considerations for how much knowledge of the
> underlay network has to be shared to the CE?
> -          What are the considerations for how an underlay distinguishes
> CE-originated slicing traffic?
> These are pretty much the same questions that CE-based VPNs have to
> answer. Of course, the concept of a “provider-managed CE” muddies these
> waters somewhat.
> Conversely, the port-based PE-based VPN has none of these problems, but
> does have to agree on the “Access Connection” encoding, and that is either
> payload-sensitive (like in PWE3) or technology-aware (like in L3VPN).
> [...]
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 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