Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Comments inline.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Kiran Makhijani
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 11:35 AM
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Deborah,
It was a deliberate effort to avoid using term network slice - which is a broader concept of "End-to-end network slice" and everything is not IETF specific. By use of term transport, we are able to  (quite precisely) scope our work in the context of IP/MPLS technologies - things IETF concern with.

[JD]   Since, as has been amply demonstrated on this mailing list for an extended period, there is massive confusion about the term 'transport slice' and since all of the other work in the IETF on this topic uses the term 'network slice', I find this a rather dubious assertion.

Another advantage is clarity from the network slice concept in 3GPP which has already been defined and described in a particular way. I will find it confusing if we had to always explain that 3gpp-network slices are different than ietf-network slices. Because they are going to be different in functionality.

[JD]  Really?  That's not the impression I got from Deborah, who seems quite familiar with industry-wide activity on this topic.

Transport slices capture only the connectivity specific details for things we refer to as transport networks. So far it has aligned will with ACTN, enhance VPN and other TE related work.

[JD]  All of which use a different and reasonably well-aligned terminology.

We will not know how to specify, mange or onboard a RAN, Wireless or a vertical-centric functionality, so there is no point in making assumptions about them in our design and terminology.

-Kiran

From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:31 AM
To: TEAS WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

Hi,
(speaking as an individual)

Picking up on Jari's comment "sometimes people want to use labels that are a bit more imprecise, but I think we should strive to avoid such labels as much as we can", can you give more background on the choice of the term "transport slice"?

I noted while you have text on the use of "transport" by 3GPP as specifying a very specific sub-network in the radio network (which excludes the handoff to the rest of the network), you referenced RFC5921 (MPLS-TP) for the term "transport".

There was a long thread of mail on ACTN, RFC8453, to move away from the term "transport" to "TE networks" which was agreed to be more specific/appropriate for TEAS. Considering IETF is already using the term "network slicing" (including TEAS RFC8453) and 3GPP use of the term, I don't understand the use of "transport" in this document.

Considering IETF already uses the term "network slice" and 3GPP uses the term (and all the industry SDOs), I am concerned we will be confusing the industry, especially as "transport" is an imprecise term for TEAS work. Is this work a subset and scoped only to the 3GPP "transport" cloud (and implied use of MPLS-TP)? Or is it planned to be generic (for all TE networks)?

Deborah
(speaking as individual)