Subject: Re: [Netslices] netslicing/netslices: Potential next steps

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:29:35 +0000

Jeff,

Thanks for your advice. It is always in our mind that we should be consistent with IETF’s efforts. In our plan, we should be able to introduce our primary design for the unified slice template/object by early September. It would then be subject to be modified according to IETF discussion. The orchestration algorithms and mapping implementation, for my understanding, is out of IETF standardization scope, and we do not have plan to open source them (at least for now). The API and data models are open for invoking or interoperating.

Our demonstration in IETF 100 Bits-NBites would prove the design of the unified slice template/object is doable and can be mapped into specific network infrastructures. However, due to different ability, capability & resources of various network infrastructures, it may not be all aspects of the unified slice template/object that can be mapped.

Best regards,

Sheng

Sender: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent time: 2017年7月31日 4:51
Receiver: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>; Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>; Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Copy: IAB <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; qiangli (D) <[email-masked]>; Yudelei <[email-masked]>
Title: Re: [Netslices] netslicing/netslices: Potential next steps

Sheng,

Great, thanks for the update.
Would be great if you'd bring your work to IETF at a rather early stage, otherwise there could be a rather large gap, between what we will be doing in IETF vs your team's work. Also think about collaboration with all the efforts you have mentioned above and how to build on top (API's, data models) rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
IAB/IESG will continuously direct the overall effort.

Looking forward to seeing your work.

Thanks,
Jeff
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 19:00 Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Benoit & Jeff,

Thanks for your clear advices and instructions, which we will follow. For me, a unified slice template/object and its management are modest work for IETF to start work. My team is working on such design and correspondent implementation. The implementation is also including orchestration algorithms and mapping the unified slice template/object to one/multiple specific network infrastructures, for which VPN, Virtual router, Detnet, ACTN, and other new technologies are in our consideration. We are planning a demonstration on this for IETF 100 Bits-N-Bites, too.

Many thanks and best regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netslices [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 1:48 AM
> To: Benoit Claise; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; Jari Arkko
> Cc: IAB
> Subject: Re: [Netslices] netslicing/netslices: Potential next steps
>
> Benoit,
>
> Thanks for sharing.
> As discussed – we will continue working towards narrowed down and realistic
> set of requirements towards IETF, that should guide all the great work
> happening across different area’s/wg’s.
>
> >From IAB that would be Jari and myself.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff (as the BoF IAB shepherd)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netslices <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of Benoit Claise
> <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:32
> To: <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Subject: [Netslices] netslicing/netslices: Potential next steps
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     Thanks for all who contributed to the netslicing BoF: the document
>     authors, the presenters, the participants, and the chairs. During this
>     week, next to BoF itself, I've had multiple opportunities to speak about
>     netslicing, with some BoF proponents, with the IAB shepherds, and with
>     the IESG/IAB on Friday afternoon, etc. This helped me understanding the
>     different points of views and clarified some aspects.
>
>     It's true that the network slicing has got a specific meaning in the
>     context of 5G, but, as Georg (as liaison) stressed: there are no 3GPP
>     requirements for the IETF at this point in time. Nevertheless, there are
>     parts that the IETF should look at. And there are parts of the network
>     slicing concept that are already being worked on at the IETF. ACTN comes
>     to mind, but also DETNET, and I heard of VPN+. The individual work in
>     WGs should continue and potentially be extended.
>
>     Note that I carefully used the "network slicing concept" term in the
>     previous sentence. As one important next step, it would nice to focus on
>     a common "network slicing" definition, at least its meaning for the IETF.
>
>     As mentioned during the BoF, this is not the IETF role to define a
>     complete orchestrator, controller, or NMS/OSS. This should be developed
>     by an opensource project. However, what would be a practical next step
>     is to specify a kind of network slicing template, with the envisioned
>     required parameters. From there, we could determine what's missing
> when
>     we try to map it to a specific (IETF) technologies.
>
>     Let me make up an (hopefully simple) example: I would like to have a
>     network slice with a guaranteed bandwidth b, end-to-end jitter j, packet
>     loss p, end-to-end max delay d. Do we even those abilities in the
>     underlying technologies?
>
>     Regards, Benoit (as the BoF responsible AD)
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Netslices mailing list
>     [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netslices mailing list
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices