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

Uma Chunduri <> Fri, 12 February 2021 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E923A0EEA for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:32:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_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 PwTUuEkB-PiQ for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:32:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70A0D3A0E78 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:32:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 133so7461897ybd.5 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:32:50 -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=BB7FVGGsGeRyyiPh7U2ihJubo7+PHWNz2p5SJue8KFY=; b=A6lkOUMVy8Y0fSSRqKCI9ivxo1fVaPqU4I0TlLszUyImZGtgQH24RVXyWDjHyz7WwO h9hIdrCnp30UQKf0JfmgrZZ9Wn0fCjvyABv5MQmyYE3jq/ih5BCU7Dp2GZt76qSjUoAR KWdCDJFz7ZG3tdOksXXw8xSjQLM7JxPvHmm8u26Ff+SMzLLyj0jFiZp/n/iUh1T7SstY m8qqQ/dJDDTmXeEX45FiNAi1P+pHe5/SR+FFC39c2CeYAXzfTW9R+lVZ4fU+G+v0MKg+ VBAg0i9w3eQmS9pxl1grqWEdoFIC9jqltwJnV9aeeXihYGGvVHS8GaLpdgc4c7pSwJka X4sw==
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=BB7FVGGsGeRyyiPh7U2ihJubo7+PHWNz2p5SJue8KFY=; b=XcjOaO93ObKyFr+x+ZYXfLEERusYxFg62aseo9uztSNckTpw3d5he9NZ13tsPCGaQG D+4iCvqt8Hi30EHIfUG6lXcIHzxK14qk9gb14ubMuOmRXdJtmCTh/FRuLNTd9vq/EBrJ puICf3DMGuZrfWIK++IPA1cGD1RGwT7Xr3sl/8EnKoYTLJ/+i98UDmN68AGS6NbdzDQL 1pxR2f8my6VGxrB1bD2pzXTxYrl/IZ2t7b8v5G+0QSHxgRF9IJ0v+K6AYyKI3aRQx5Co pOuznb2wcau/AybFv4GE6FGUmoY4qNXTdxga+vezpybYL1jV0CCmADz34tn8sW28yM/B lqjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LImwepRPPMZcsbd/9ioE9nSEqldJswQAvQHHGDrbrvEKQIFI0 FwcPC5xgojPAhtpB1sEMb/pTt9iEzfp+qXbNYqbL+mwH6j0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxdctvbdqY3PKYzLK3eCigtlLIAydtzwXsBucOPBNV4w/pn68pFkNomhNnocGyRmxl5l4A4jD9Z3ioEu7A8xmc=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3104:: with SMTP id x4mr639891ybx.141.1613089968518; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:32:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <022001d6fc0e$4facba70$ef062f50$>
In-Reply-To: <022001d6fc0e$4facba70$ef062f50$>
From: Uma Chunduri <>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:32:37 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, TEAS WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009079c505bb18c68d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] 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: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:32:52 -0000

> 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 <> 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 <> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: 05 February 2021 17:04
> To:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list