Re: [Teas] consideration of 1 VPN to N VNs mapping

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359283A09B8; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 06:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UrtQj7t7EMQd; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 06:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB1353A096C; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 06:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0A1A58DDA18899E9EF85; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 14:15:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) by lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 14:15:17 +0100
Received: from DGGEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.40) by lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 14:15:17 +0100
Received: from DGGEML531-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.134]) by dggeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 21:15:13 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Ogaki, Kenichi" <ke-oogaki@kddi.com>, 'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: =?gb2312?B?J4xt2+AgzdjSsic=?= <ta-miyasaka@kddi.com>, =?gb2312?B?J7Wk0/Ags6/QxSc=?= <to-niwa@kddi.com>, "draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] consideration of 1 VPN to N VNs mapping
Thread-Index: AdZrJsdRA4jnREQdQUCOeweZNGxDmQ==
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:15:13 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD8CEDBD@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.164.150.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/y2srlUmBrbWUboXEVf5bqgTK16E>
Subject: Re: [Teas] consideration of 1 VPN to N VNs mapping
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 13:15:22 -0000

Hi,
-----ÓʼþÔ­¼þ-----
·¢¼þÈË: Ogaki, Kenichi [mailto:ke-oogaki@kddi.com] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2020Äê8ÔÂ5ÈÕ 8:59
ÊÕ¼þÈË: 'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
³­ËÍ: 'ŒmÛà ÍØÒ²' <ta-miyasaka@kddi.com>om>; 'µ¤Ó𠳯ÐÅ' <to-niwa@kddi.com>om>; draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [Teas] consideration of 1 VPN to N VNs mapping

Hi Dhruv,

Thanks for the prompt reply.

>There is an 'end-to-end leaf' that says bandwidth reservation needs to be done in MPLS network but I did not interpret that it requires maintaining a separate VN, the consolidated requirements from all classes can be mapped to a single VN and the QoS is applied at the edges as per the L3SM YANG.

As you saw in section 6.12.3.2, the properties of custom qos-profile include latency, and we honestly want the per-flow, classification rule, based VN mapping mechanism.

[Qin]: Kenichi, thanks for heads up.
RFC8299 allow you specify site level QoS parameters and site-network-access level QoS parameters. Each site-nework-access can support different QoS parameters matching one or multiple traffic flows.
These QoS parameters don't need to tie with specific CE-PE connectivity. It could be used to describe end to end QoS requirements from one site to another site or one site to multiple destination sites using target-site leaf-list under match-flow definition.
However RFC8299 doesn't describe 1 to 1 relation between target-class-id and standard-profile, it could be N to 1 relation.
standard profile (such as golden, silver) can not be simply seen as network performance constraint. QoS parameters in custom profile (e.g., latency) should be seen as SLA contract set between customer and operator, which is still a little different from network performance constraints used for path computation.

Secondly, we can map one VPN into one VN with multiple VN members, each VN member describe connective from one site to another destination site and can support different QoS requirement which is similar to using site-network-access to support different QoS requirements.
Does this satisfy your use case?

>Anyways, let me get this verified from L3SM experts and come back to you.

Your colleague and one of co-editors of both te-service-mapping and RFC8299, Qin Wu, is familiar with this discussion like this:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/i5srx8YpD9296bu3VuIkHgAEi3g/
Q.12 from David Ball

Thanks,
Kenichi

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 7:54 PM
To: Ogaki, Kenichi <ke-oogaki@kddi.com>
Cc: ŒmÛà ÍØÒ² <ta-miyasaka@kddi.com>om>; µ¤Ó𠳯ÐÅ <to-niwa@kddi.com>om>; draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org; TEAS WG (teas@ietf.org) <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] consideration of 1 VPN to N VNs mapping

Hi Kenichi,

I have not looked into it in detail but my understanding of the classes in the custom qos-profile is that they are about the access CE-PE link and thus would not lead to the creation of a separate VN per class.

Even in the example
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8299#section-6.12.3.2 it says how the
100 Mbps on the access link is shared between the 3 classes.

There is an 'end-to-end leaf' that says bandwidth reservation needs to be done in MPLS network but I did not interpret that it requires maintaining a separate VN, the consolidated requirements from all classes can be mapped to a single VN and the QoS is applied at the edges as per the L3SM YANG.

Anyways, let me get this verified from L3SM experts and come back to you.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:29 PM Ogaki, Kenichi <ke-oogaki@kddi.com> wrote:
>
> Hi draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang authors,
>
> Could you consider 1 to N mapping for the L3VPN to VN mapping?
>
> As we required some changes to actn-vn-yang before/during 108th meeting, we would like to also discuss an additional requirement to te-service-mapping-yang. Sorry, late for 108th meeting.
>
> If we correctly understand the current definition, only one VN is allowed to be mapped to a VPN as described in section 4.1 and the model in section 6.1.1.
> However, L3SM expects to differentiate traffic handling per qos-profile which corresponds to key network performance constraints including bandwidth and latency, etc. as described in section 6.12.3.2 of RFC8299.
> As an operator, we believe this means that a qos-profile should be mapped to a VN like this:
>
>    module: ietf-l3sm-te-service-mapping
>      augment /l3vpn-svc:l3vpn-svc/l3vpn-svc:vpn-services
>                /l3vpn-svc:vpn-service:
>        +--rw te-service-mapping!
>           +--rw te-mapping
>              +--rw mapping* [mapping-id]
>                 +--rw mapping-id
>                 +--rw target-class-id?        -> /l3vpn-svc:l3vpn-svc/vpn-profiles
>                 |                                  /valid-provider-identifiers/qos-profile-identifier
>                 |                                  /id
>                 +--rw map-type?               identityref
>                 +--rw availability-type?      identityref
>                 +--rw (te)?
>                    +--:(vn)
>                    |  +--rw vn-ref?           -> /vn:vn/vn-list/vn-id
>                    +--:(te-topo)
>                    |  +--rw vn-topology-id?   te-types:te-topology-id
>                    |  +--rw abstract-node?
>                    |          -> /nw:networks/network/node/node-id
>                    +--:(te-tunnel)
>                       +--rw te-tunnel-list*   te:tunnel-ref
>
>
> Also, in L3SM, qos-profile can be locally defined under site-network-access and also mapped to classification rules defined there as described in 6.12.3.2/6.12.3.1. Then, te-service-mapping-yang should also map a VNAP to the local qos-profile even without vpn-service level mapping like this:
>
>      augment /l3vpn-svc:l3vpn-svc/l3vpn-svc:sites/l3vpn-svc:site
>                /l3vpn-svc:site-network-accesses/l3vpn-svc:site-network-access
>                /l3vpn-svc:service/l3vpn-svc:qos/l3vpn-svc:qos-profile
>                /l3vpn-svc:profile:
>        +--rw (te)?
>           +--:(vn)
>              +--rw vn-ap-ref?
>                      -> /vn:ap/access-point-list/vn-ap/vn-ap-id
>
>      augment /l3vpn-svc:l3vpn-svc/l3vpn-svc:sites/l3vpn-svc:site
>                /l3vpn-svc:site-network-accesses/l3vpn-svc:site-network-access
>                /l3vpn-svc:service/l3vpn-svc:qos/l3vpn-svc:qos-profile/l3vpn-svc:classes
>                /l3vpn-svc:class:
>        +--rw (te)?
>           +--:(vn)
>              +--rw vn-ap-ref?
>                      -> /vn:ap/access-point-list/vn-ap/vn-ap-id
>
> Although we may consider the same requirement to L2SM mapping, from our service objectives, the current definition is enough for now.
>
> How do you think?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Kenichi
>
> --
> Kenichi Ogaki
> KDDI Corp. | Operation Automation Promotion Dept.
> +81-(0)80-5945-9138 | www.kddi.com
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas