Re: [Teas] Drafts on slicing in SR networks

Tarek Saad <> Tue, 17 November 2020 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F923A102F; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:27:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 JqmL0p7RvX-k; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C0F3A0EA8; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h16so13933450otq.9; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:27:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FG/BNmU8CEiyC/Fa6gAPU7viYPZl4xz1e/rr6tuTcAQ=; b=CzDYrYarfGwTNC9WpQLF58FnR92Q6UTaFId6J0QSCF1tJjJ5MRvpuCAUVRXmMa+uiu TUXPq7FdkgY6+64467coCw9lcSeOB3SRfRNhRyJCvxJXS9Qk2lJCVqBq9ACrlE7d8C/n DlN6mbfyWzeF2h+sPSplsynCvOzgQUOgjUVo18Bz+6LWfUVNWl7EmUYjwy9Z3DjzxM8o S4UJOWuoc6W3atk6B1ohZJG38aln2cPa5erMve5+2kGFboAxxIGB+yCoERBCbqyPNKcW RdHGyY+F7KEr1cL0pPTSqUmKa16HuZkYas5nzr80M/4xjpSDmLXbuMySZbOF/JXT/NuZ FlAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FG/BNmU8CEiyC/Fa6gAPU7viYPZl4xz1e/rr6tuTcAQ=; b=jOHDLywkpdjCMuezHOVZKfQBMeOvBQ6vcLF8cIvbrjXwVPrGBzJypujfou3u8YFESk 7zHWuTSrHZYQa5Y1urf183fRNYSwyPH6O0OBdXhAJYGxi8SfkwoGpcoDORb8InEItNtR iVLc2Buw3IIG+zcBZJwsfLANlqc86uYdPxa8uLWK0bLeYZxuDFEypIyGcO7sNNuwLx9Z kXjFpGnsnjmwBKBaOHF6lMsbuaHB9Mp5CXKyxi3+HhvinXKXjYeetPMycsXuvEibXVZl AKshqhfm4sm581o/ALlIFF+FW5qY8LLvuttkQkMdxxPLfMWduXwfSmXLrYFuHrFnYs8/ gN2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ap2d/HDHBVl8IUv8gFW8u8mrplkU1MtBvMUGVyoqE+jPDs7Ta vjEFUV4PoUMRXOVP6QYbmrDivbsz+XMC4A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycKatlOzEIzRwBrWmXS9Nb0SKdB0aEHG6AFdn3YUtchEW+BzCTLtZvB5Jr1Ud5m5olleuJ1w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:4d6:: with SMTP id s22mr1715182otd.30.1605580073782; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:27:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([2603:1036:4:9e::5]) by with ESMTPSA id b123sm5467952oii.47.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:27:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Tarek Saad <>
To: Lou Berger <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Drafts on slicing in SR networks
Thread-Index: ATE2ZGI2xUWuGcP3URO4o2xIZ/H7U8sMSbog
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 02:27:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Drafts on slicing in SR networks
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: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 02:27:56 -0000

Thank you Lou for reaching out. 

Indeed, the solution that draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet proposes is path control agnostic and covers SR and non-SR.
For SR-MPLS, draft-bestbar proposes a slice selector that can be in the form of a forwarding label (SR prefix-SID) or a global slice label that is carried in the MPLS packet.
The global slice label as a slice selector offers some advantages with respect to scale that we have mentioned in the draft in section 5.2.1.

When the selector is derived from the forwarding label (SR prefix-SID), we do see some overlap between the two drafts. We would like to point out that there are also some key differences with respect to slice identification and slice per-hop QoS enforcement. We also notice that the slice identifier "AII" used in draft-peng-teas-network-slicing associates a dedicated topology for each slice. Since it is possible to slice the same topology into multiple slices, we think it is preferrable to decouple the AII as a slice identifier from the underlying topology identifier.

That said, we would like to reach out to the authors of draft-peng-teas-network-slicing and figure out a way to converge.
We will report back the results of this discussion to the WG on the mailing list.

Tarek (for authors of draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet)

On 11/16/20, 6:25 AM, "Teas on behalf of Lou Berger" < on behalf of> wrote:


         Apologies for the lack of time to discuss your drafts in today's 
    TEAS WG meeting.  I note that both cover overlapping topics, i.e., 
    slicing in SR networks.  Would it be possible/reasonable for the authors 
    to try to work together to come up with a joint proposal for 
    consideration by the WG?  I do note that one document is solely on SR 
    with the other covers SR and non-SR usage.

    Thank you,

    Lou (as Chair)

    Teas mailing list