Subject: [mpls] Unify Terminologies for Network Slicing

From: Lizhenbin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 11:19:30 +0000

Hi All,
All following drafts has the similar idea to carry an ID in the forwarding data plane. The id is to represent the network slice. But there are different definitions for the ID (VTN ID, Slice ID, Slice Selector/Slice Aggregate ID, etc. ) in these drafts. At the same time, the slice has been defined as the north bound interface as the service. I suggest that the terminology must be unified in the TEAS WG firstly. Or else it will cause much confusion and mess which also have much effect on the work in other WGs.

TEAS WG:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability/

MPLS WG:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa/

6MAN WG:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id/

Best Regards,
Robin

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 09:49:03 -0500

At least the bestbar draft carries an id for what we call there a slice 
aggregate.  That is, an id at the granularity needed for affecting 
behavior, not an id for identifying the end-to-end network slice or even 
the individual IETF Network Slice.

It is not clear to me that the packet as visible at every point in the 
network needs an identifier for the end-to-end network slice.

And it is clear that we need to avoid unifying terminology that 
represents different things.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/9/2021 6:19 AM, Lizhenbin wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> All following drafts has the similar idea to carry an ID in the 
> forwarding data plane. The id is to represent the network slice. But 
> there are different definitions for the ID (VTN ID, Slice ID, Slice 
> Selector/Slice Aggregate ID, etc. ) in these drafts. At the same time, 
> the slice has been defined as the north bound interface as the service. 
> I suggest that the terminology must be unified in the TEAS WG firstly. 
> Or else it will cause much confusion and mess which also have much 
> effect on the work in other WGs.
> 
> TEAS WG:
> 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id/>
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>