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

["Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

Uma,

Please my previous response to this email thread.
The draft co-authors are working on these terms  but the suggested terms (or some of them) might be considered.

Reza


From: Teas <[e-mail]> on behalf of Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 7:32 PM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>, TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

> I suggest "source/destination" and "IETF network slice ingress/egress".


+1 for the above.

--
Uma C.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:29 PM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Ah, the old "endpoint" discussion.

Yes, Joel is right, we need to disambiguate endpoints from endpoints.
There are traffic endpoints (the sender and receiver of packets), and there
are endpoints of the service (the ingress and egress to the slice).

There is probably a risk that we get sucked in to the wider 5G picture, but
we need to focus (as Joel says) on the IETF network slice.

I suggest "source/destination" and "IETF network slice ingress/egress".

And we can avoid discussion of the wider 5G context, as noted elsewhere in
the draft, by diverting that material into a dedicated document.

Cheers,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 05 February 2021 17:04
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Teas] network Slice Endpoint in
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00

Rereading this draft, I realized that I am either confused by or
disagree with the description of the "Network Slice Endpoint" contianed
there.


The endpoint that I think matters is the place where the IETF Network
Slice Controller starts controlling the QoS and traffic delivery.  The
Controller doesn't care about the identity of the device outside of that.

Figure 1 in section 4.2 seems to define that endpoint as the network
slice realiation endpoint, and describes the network slice endpoint as
the thing outside the IetF network slice.  This seems counter-productive
to me.  It complicates teh relationship between the endpoitn and the
service being abstracted.  For example, if the service is beign
delivered with MPLS, the Network Slice Endpoint likely can not put the
labels on the packet for the MPLS, as it is outside of the IETF network
Slice.  So we will need yet another layer of classification, and yet
more interworking.
Further, someone has to get the queueing right for traffic coming out of
the Network Slice Endpoint.  But it is not part of the IETF Network
Slice, so we don't have any way to get it right.

If we define the edge of the space we care about co-incident with the
edge of the space we influence, things get a lot cleaner.

Yours,
Joel

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas