Subject: [Teas] Network Slicing meeting at IETF 97

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:00:51 +0000

I sent the following to the attendees of the Network Slicing Side 
Meeting at IETF97.

It has been proposed that discussion continue on the TEAS list.

Stewart

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Stewart Bryant 
<[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

    Thanks to everyone that participated and thanks to those that took notes
    of the meeting.

    Jie and I have merged the notes, which are included below. Corrections
    welcome.

    I have put the slides on dropbox rather than attach them to the email.
    The slides can be found here:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ax2ofdwygjema8z/0-Network%20Slicing%20Side%20Meeting%20Introduction_IETF97.pdf?dl=0
    <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ax2ofdwygjema8z/0-Network%20Slicing%20Side%20Meeting%20Introduction_IETF97.pdf?dl=0>

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2or6sd0ddzrc6c/1-Network%20Slicing%20Problem%20Statement_IETF97.pdf?dl=0
    <https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2or6sd0ddzrc6c/1-Network%20Slicing%20Problem%20Statement_IETF97.pdf?dl=0>

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8zvfvbrtkysjs1/2-Autonomic%20Slice%20Networking_IETF97.pdf?dl=0
    <https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8zvfvbrtkysjs1/2-Autonomic%20Slice%20Networking_IETF97.pdf?dl=0>

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/d3rk4pjeg552ilv/3-Architecture%20for%20delivering%20multicast%20mobility%20services%20using%20network%20slicing_IETF97.pdf?dl=0
    <https://www.dropbox.com/s/d3rk4pjeg552ilv/3-Architecture%20for%20delivering%20multicast%20mobility%20services%20using%20network%20slicing_IETF97.pdf?dl=0>

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/e3isn1bxwwhaw8g/4-ACTN%20and%20network%20slicing_IETF97.pdf?dl=0
    <https://www.dropbox.com/s/e3isn1bxwwhaw8g/4-ACTN%20and%20network%20slicing_IETF97.pdf?dl=0>

    If anyone has trouble with the links, please let me know and I will make
    some other arrangement for depositing the files.

    To avoid span traps, I am sending this to a few people at a time, so
    please do not reply to this email and expect the
    message to go to the entire set of attendees. The last discussion I had
    with the Routing ADs suggested that we
    continue the discussion on the IETF TEAS list. I am not sure that this
    is necessarily the best long term home, but let's
    start there and if we generate to much noise outside their scope, I am
    sure we will be asked to move and provided
    with a new home.

    Best Regards

    Stewart & jie

    =====================

    Network Slicing Side Meeting

    Nov 14, 2016, 19:00-21:00, Studio 3

    67 People signed the attendance sheet.

    0.    General Admin

    Jie Dong introduced the purpose of the meeting.
    Services have unique requirements, end-2-end slicing is required
    for 5G. Among definitions we need to establish common definition.
    Purpose is to have a common view of what network slicing is in IETF.

    List request has been sent to Deborah (Routing Area AD).

    1. Network slicing problem statement    Stewart Bryant

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-network-slicing-problem-statement-00
    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-network-slicing-problem-statement-00>

    Presentation:

    What is to be done in IETF, what existing and new work?

    Existing definition
    -    NGMN
    -    3GPP
    -    ITU-T (FG IMT-2020)
    -    IETF?

    Requirements of Network Slicing
    -    Isolation/separation
    -    Customization of topology
    -    Flexibility of topology
    -    Guaranteed QoS
    -    Management consideration

    What should be definition of network slicing in IETF ?
    What is needed beyond connectivity?

    What is the scope of network slicing in IETF?

    How much can existing/on-going tech meet the reqt?

    Discussion/Questions:

    Comment 1. IETF is protocol-oriented, how would slicing change
    the semantics of existing protocols?

    Stewart: We typically have a set of tools designed for
    best-effort fabrics and adding BW, these are not scalable and we
    need some additional scheduling.

    Comment 2. We typically build separate networks for banking and
    other low latency apps, this is not economical. Isolation and
    security are weak points.

    Comment 3. What are the performance and isolation requirements?
    Does this mean statistical sharing is out of scope? Fixed
    fraction of b/w seems to be a must.

    Stewart: There will be a spectrum of requirements, different QoS
    for different application, we may need some packet scheduling.
    Do we need isolation using mechanisms like IEEE (time sensitive
    networking ? TSN) or detnet. If its bit-level, we will go back
    to TDM.

    Andrew: isolation and security is the biggest challenge,
    figure out how to provide banking applications in economic manner,
    such as a slice. Packet scheduling at buffer and line speed
    level is not enough we need to adapt to packet changes at micro-level
    (it was quietly mentioned, we are not thinking at bit-level but
    focus at packet level).

    Comment 4. Look at 5G applications for machine critical, interface
    b/w down to radio is key, we may adapt BW based on radio capacity,
    Internet does not do this today, we need to figure this out.

    Stewart: It may be a packet level.  factoring into a lower layer is
    an issue

    Comment 5. Can we define slicing??

    Stewart: We can also agree on an existing definition, which would
    be useful.

    Comment 6. Generalised packet networks are not suitable for hard
    packet tunnels.

    Comment 7. Dave Allen (Ericsson):  slicing definition leave it open
    disjoint resource like wavelength is considered in other forum as
    the only way to achieve isolation. e.g. WDM-PON, wavelengths allocated
    per slice. (Young Lee added that WSON controller is already doing this).
    What does packet have to do if isolation cannot be guaranteed?

    2. Autonomic slice networking    Alex Galis

    Presentation:
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-galis-anima-autonomic-slice-networking-00
    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-galis-anima-autonomic-slice-networking-00>

    Generation 1 - Resource partition of network resource is one definition.
    Generation 2 - Network function and services are another definition of
                    network slicing.
    Generation 3 - Grouping of partitioning of 5G slicing
    Generation 4 - Management and control and advertisement has to be added
                    to the Network slicing definition

    ANIMA - unified network slicing definition in the context of autonomic
    networking

    - The service instance component
    - A network slice instance component
    - Resource component
    - Slice capability exposure component

    Suggested 15 work items and issues

    Discussion/Questions:

    Comment 1. Dino: asked difference between horizontal and vertical
    slicing. Vertical slicing, can an application be a member of
    multiple slices? Will Extranet be required? For horizontal
    slicing, would it be stitching or something else? These would be
    for customers ill shared services and isolation for specific VPN
    connectivity

    Alex: Yes, level of abstraction and level of isolation need to be
    considered, and separate control may also be needed.

    Stewart: We may see both models

    Comment 2. This complicates the solution space.

    Alex: This is not an intent to recreate a VPN technology.

    Comment 3. Feels like IETF is lagging in industry work, upper
    service layer which drives network resources. OpenSource is already
    ahead/doing some of this, slicing is mainly multi-tenant, this is
    not rocket science or new. They are trying to map existing
    technology like
    VXLAN and mapping it into YANG. Is there a new architecture and
    protocol required? what is the role of IETF? API ? application
    level TOSCA; policy; YANG; already in place in industry. Question
    is where is the gap? Map to protocol of new or existing protocols.

    Stewart: Those are the questions we are asking at the start of the
    session.

    Comment 4.  Slicing is a service definition, where is the gap?
    Categorise them and see if we need new protocols, or adapt existing.

    Alec: Yes, at least 15 problems, these are not supported by existing
    protocols.

    Comment 5. We have a slicing architecture (as part of a H2020 project),
    and service orchestrator, we then define flows which are application
    specific: IoT, video, etc.

    Comment 6. Ravi: IMT-2020 challenge was that service context could
    be only identified by flow tuple in cp, dp and mgmt. Also slicing is
    interesting for ICN as it allows new architectures and new properites
    per slice basis.

    3. Architecture for delivering multicast mobility services using
    network slicing Truong-Xuan Do

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuan-dmm-multicast-mobility-slicing-00
    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuan-dmm-multicast-mobility-slicing-00>

    Presentation:

    Multicast functionality is different for say broadcast, mobility etc
    cases, so there is a need to function decomposition and function
    chaining.

    Discussion/Questions:

    Comment 1. You are aware of DMM working group, DMM FTC draft defines
    a model that covers this. I think the group does not have a good
    definition of "slice", domain is similar with 5G slice. I think it's
    not clear what a slice is.

    Stewart: This is why we are here; do we need to define "slice"?

    4. ACTN and network slicing - Daniele Ceccarelli

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-01
    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-01>

    Presentation:

    Describe end to end L2VPN/L3VPN is not enough, so there are 3
    different level of controls (CNC, PNC and MDSC for customer, physical,
    multi-domain network controls). Access points, per domain tunnels and
    inter-domain links. Customer is able to provide constraints during
    network provisioning.

    Discussion/Questions:

    Comment 1. Parviz: ACTN is a great piece of work, we have integrated
                based on this framework. We shipped and integrate into ONOS.
                ACTN is used for integrated packet optical SDN based
    solution.
                It is generalized for L0-L3 layers and need to be perhaps
                extended for L1,L2 and NS. ACTN seems to have a good
    starting
                point for network resource slicing and Detnet may be
                implementing a protocol solution for time-sensitive
    networking.

    Comment 2. Do you slice at the lower/physical lower and provide a
    slice to
                the customer? So they can modify network resource, based on
                their specific slice? Customer may just want the
    resource, not
                a solution, they want to manage it by themselves.

    Daniele:  Yes, they can manage their own resource.

    Young Lee: VNF connectivity is included in the solution.

    Alex: Maybe methods for slicing exist, the management methods for
           specific applications and network functions are missing.

    Comment 3. ACTN has multiple topology descriptions (physical, virtual
                and customer), can it support end to end slicing with
                applications?

    YoungLee:  ACTN also support NFV-constraints as part of abstraction and
                connectivity.

    Comment 4. Looking at ACTN it seems it can abstract multiple physical
                domains and give us a logical view of TE/transport.

    Daniele: ACTN introduces virtual networking, between MDSC and CNC,
    beneath
              PNC, its technology/vendor specific.

    Comment 5: Why ACTN for network slicing? Does it support hierarchy?

    YoungLee: Yes. It does via MDSC-MDSC recursion.

    Comment 6. ACTN is for multi-domain. How about for a single domain?

    YoungLee: Yes, multi-domain solution includes single-domain, which is
    easier.

    Comment 7. For 5G transport, IETF has a role to play. Front-haul,
    back-haul
                and cross haul need transport network abstraction which is
    needed
                for 5G network. Orchestration federation takes each
    component
                to give end-to-end solution.

    Georgios: Asked how does it do QoS besides partitioning of n/w
    resources.

    Ans: Whatever TC can do is supported

    Pedro: There are 2 aspects of slices - an act of creating it, and second
            customizing and managing it in isolation is second part of the
    problem.

    Comment: Service abstraction layer is missing and Information models.

    Seil: is there a gap to be discussed.

    Natasha from GSMA: not duplicate the work of other SDOs, if work needs
    to evolve they will let IETF specific group know.

    Wim from Nokia: slicing includes all - management, applications, radio
    etc beyond transport.

    Chris Seal: we need a stable platform first that doesnt exist.

    Loa: non WG BOF can be done, it is way too early to exclude from IETF

    Dave Allend: so many people are working on it. Problem space need to be
    deconstructed, work needs to be done in totality of it.

    Jonas: can we invite 3GPP for next meeting?

    5. Open Discussion 60 mins

    Stewart posed several questions

    1. Does the IETF need to work on slicing?   Yes

    2. Does existing technologies solve the full set of slicing
    requirements?   No

    Comments:

    Already there are several slice definitions, educating and agreeing
    definitions is useful

    - Suggest we allow implementations first using existing solutions, using
    the tools which are already available.

    - Network slicing is important; it needs to be end-to-end and the IETF
    has be involved. We also need to engage with other SDOs (3GPP, et al.),
    including inviting the (SDOs) to participate in a BoF.

    - ACTN seems like a good starting point, maybe this needs to be extended
    for additional technologies like Radio

    - A lot of this discussion needs to be relevant to the IETF, what's on
    and in the wire

    - Process from here for the discussion, is non-WG BoF and then
    WG-forming BoF. We should not exclude a potential WG on this topic, we
    should prepare and investigate, then if we decide not to form that's
    better than not being able to form due to a lack of investigation work.

    - One reason for lots of slicing definitions is the fact so many people
    are working on this topic. Across different areas and functions
    (controllers, orchestrations), and scheduling and APIs. We would need
    to deconstruct the problem space to understand what is needed, and how
    the IETF can help.

    - Of the questions asked through show of hands, people favored forming
    a non-working group and agreed this is an area IETF can work into.

    - Identifying gaps from IETF perspective is the most important aspect.

    3. Does the IETF need to focus discussion and develop tools for slicing?
    (no discussion captured)

    4. Interests to work on slicing?  A lot

    5. Willing to contribute to drafts and discussions? Some

    <end>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:37:58 -0500

Stewart,

Thanks for this information. It would be good if you could help kick off 
the discussion by describing how Slicing differs from current RFCs, ACTN 
and other existing (chartered) work on TE.

Thank you,
Lou

On November 22, 2016 9:01:41 AM Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> ----------
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>