TEAS Working Group | D. King |
Internet-Draft | Old Dog Consulting |
Intended status: Informational | J. Drake |
Expires: December 18, 2020 | Juniper Networks |
H. Zheng | |
Huawei Technologies | |
June 16, 2020 |
Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) to TE Network Slicing
draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-05
Network abstraction is a technique that can be applied to a network domain that utilizes a set of policies to select network resources and obtain a view of potential connectivity across the network.
Network slicing is an approach to network operations that builds on the concept of network abstraction to provide programmability, flexibility, and modularity. It may use techniques such as Software Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Function Virtualization (NFV) to create multiple logical or virtual networks, each tailored for a set of services share the same set of requirements.
Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) is described in RFC 8453. It defines an SDN-based architecture that relies on the concept of network and service abstraction to detach network and service control from the underlying data plane.
This document outlines the applicability of ACTN to transport network slicing in a Traffic Engineering (TE) network that utilizes IETF technology. It also identifies the features of network slicing not currently within the scope of ACTN, and indicates where ACTN might be extended.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 2020.
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
The principles of network resource separation are not new. For years, separated overlay and logical (virtual) networking have existed, allowing multiple services to be deployed over a single physical network comprised of single or multiple layers. However, several key differences exist that differentiate overlay and virtual networking from network slicing.
A network slice is a virtual (that is, logical) network with its own network topology and a set of network resources that are used to provide connectivity that conforms to a specific Service Level Agreement (SLA) or Service Level Objective (SLO). The network resources used to realize a network slice belong to the network that is sliced. The resources may be assigned and dedicated to an individual slice, or they may be shared with other slices enabling different degrees of service guarantee and providing different levels of isolaiton between the traffic in each slice.
The term "Transport Network Slice" is used to describe a network slice that is used to support another network service by carrying traffic across one or more networks. A transport network slice could span multiple technologies (such as IP, MPLS, or optical) and multiple administrative domains.
The logical network that is a transport network slice may be kept separate from other concurrent logical networks each with independent control and management. Each can be created or modified on demand.
At one end of the spectrum, a virtual private wire or a virtual private network (VPN) may be used to build a network slice. In these cases, the network slices do not require the service provider to isolate network resources for the provision of the service - the service is "virtual".
At the other end of the spectrum there may be a detailed description of a complex service that will meet the needs of a set of applications with connectivity and service function requirements that may include compute resource, storage capability, and access to content. Such a service may be requested dynamically (that is, instantiated when an application needs it, and released when the application no longer needs it), and modified as the needs of the application change. This type of enhanced VPN is described in more detail in [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn].
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [RFC8453] is a framework that facilitates the abstraction of underlying network resources to higher-layer applications and that allows nework operators to create virtual networks for their customers through the abstraction of the operators' network resources. ACTN is described further in Section 3.
This document outlines the application of ACTN and associated enabling technologies to provide transport network slicing in a network that utilizes IETF technologies such as IP, MPLS, or GMPLS. It describes how the ACTN functional components can be used to support model-driven partitioning of variable-sized bandwidth to facilitate network sharing and virtualization. Furthermore, the use of model-based interfaces to dynamically request the instantiation of virtual networks can be extended to encompass requesting and instantiation of specific service functions (which may be both physical or virtual), and to partition network resources such as compute resource, storage capability, and access to content.
Various efforts within the IETF are investigating the concept of network slicing (for example, [I-D.nsdt-teas-ns-framework]) and investigate the applicability of IETF protocols to the delivery of network slicing (for example, [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]). This document highlights how the ACTN approach might be extended to address the requirements of network slicing where the underlying network is TE-capable. It is not the intention that this work contradicts or competes with other IETF work.
This document uses the following terminology. Many of these terms are in common usage in other work in the IETF and do not always have consistent meanings (see for example, [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn] and [I-D.nsdt-teas-ns-framework]). The terms defined below are intended to give context and meaning for use in this document only and do not force wider applicability.
The concept of network slicing is a key capability to serve consumers with a wide variety of different service needs express in term of latency, reliability, capacity, and service function specific capabilities.
This section outlines the key capabilities required to realize network slicing in an IETF technology network. Consideration of slicing in other technology networks (such as radio access networks) is out of scope.
Network resources need to be allocated and dedicated for use by a specific network slice, or they may be shared among multiple slices. This allows a flexible approach that can deliver a range of services by partitioning (that is, slicing) the available network resources to present make them available to meet the consumer's SLA.
A consumer may request, through their SLA, that the service deliver to them is isolated from any other services delivered to any other consumers. That is, the SLA may request that changes to the other services do not have any negative impact on the delivery of the service.
Delivery of such service isolation may be achieved in the underlying network by various forms of resource partitioning ranging from dedicated allocation of resources for a specific slice, to sharing or resources with safeguards.
Although multiple network slices may utilize resources from a single underlying network, isolation should be understood in terms of:
Network virtualization enables the creation of multiple isolated virtual networks that are operationally decoupled from the underlying physical network, and are run on top of it. Slicing should enable the creation of virtual networks as consumer services.
Orchestration combines and coordinates multiple control methods to provide a mechanism to operate one or more networks to deliver services. In a network slicing environment, an orchestrator is needed to coordinate disparate processes and resources for creating, managing, and deploying the end-to-end service. Two aspects of orchestration are required:
ACTN facilitates end-to-end connections and provides them to the user. The ACTN framework [RFC8453] introduces three functional components and two interfaces:
RFC 8453 also highlights how:
The ACTN managed infrastructure consists of traffic engineered network resources, which may include:
The ACTN network is "sliced" with consumers being given a different partial and abstracted topology view of the physical underlying network.
To support multiple consumers, each with its own view of and control of the server network, a service provider needs to partition the server network resources to create slices assigned to each consumer.
An ACTN Virtual Network (VN) is a consumer view that is a slice of the ACTN-managed infrastructure. It is a network slice that is presented to the consumer by the ACTN provider as a set of abstracted resources. See [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] for detailed ACTN VN.
Depending on the agreement between consumer and provider various VN operations possible:
[RFC8454] describes a set of functional primitives that support these different ACTN VN operations.
The examples that follow build on the ACTN framework to provide control, management, and orchestration for the network slice life-cycle. These network slices utilize common physical infrastructure, and meet specific requirements.
Three examples are shown. Each uses ACTN to achieve a different network slicing scenario. All three scenarios can be scaled up in capacity or be subject to topology changes as well as changes of consumer requirements.
In the example shown in Figure 1, ACTN provides virtual connections between multiple consumer locations, requested by the requester of a Virtual Private Line (VPL) service (CNC-A). Benefits of this model include:
(Consumer VPL Request) : ------- | CNC-A | Boundary ------- Between . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . Consumer & : Network Provider ------ | MDSC | ------ : ----- | PNC | Site A ( ----- ) Site B ------ ( ) ------ | vCE1 |========( Physical )========| vCE2 | ------ ( Network ) ------ \ (_______) / \ || / \ || / VPL 1 \ || / VPL 2 \ || / \ || / \ ------ / -----| vCE3 |---- ------ Site C Key: ... ACTN control connectivity === Physical connectivity --- Logical connectivity
Figure 1: Virtual Private Line Model
In the example shown in Figure 2, ACTN provides VPN connectivity between two sites across three physical networks. The VPN requestor (CNC) is managed by the consumer expressed as users of the two VPN sites. The CNC interacts with the network provider's MDSC. Benefits of this model include:
-------------- -------------- | Site-A Users | | Site-B Users | -------------- -------------- : : ------------- | CNC | Boundary ------------- Between . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . Consumer & : Network Provider : --------------------------------- | MDSC | --------------------------------- : : : : : : ------- ------- ------- | PNC | | PNC | | PNC | ------- ------- ------- : : : : : : ______ ----- ----- ----- ______ < > ( ) ( ) ( ) < > <Site A>====( Phys. )======( Phys. )======( Phys. )====<Site B> < > ( Net ) ( Net ) ( Net ) < > < > ----- ----- ----- < > < >-----------------------------------------------< > <______> <______> Key: ... ACTN control connectivity === Physical connectivity --- Logical connectivity
Figure 2: VPN Model
In this example (shown in Figure 3), ACTN provides a virtual network to the consumer. This virtual network is managed by the consumer. Benefits of this model include:
------------- ( Network ) | CNC |----------->( Slice 2 ) ------------- __(________ ) ------------- ( )__) | CNC |----------->( Network ) ^ ------------- ( Slice 1 ) : ^ (___________) : | ^ ^ : Boundary | : : : Between . . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . : . .:. . : . . . Consumer & | : : : Network Provider | : : : v : : : ------------- : :....: | MDSC | : : ------------- : : ^ ------^-- : | ( ) : v ( Physical ) : ------- ( Network ) : | PNC |<------------>( ) ---^----- ------- | ------- ( ) | PNC |- ( Physical ) | |<-------------------------->( Network ) ------- ( ) ------- Key: --- ACTN control connection ... Virtualization/abstraction through slicing
Figure 3: Network Slicing
The role of the TE-service mapping model [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang] is to create a binding relationship across a Layer 3 Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8049], Layer 2 Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466], and TE Tunnel model [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te], via the generic ACTN Virtual Network (VN) model [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang].
The ACTN VN model is a generic virtual network service model that allows consumers to specify a VN that meets the consumer's service objectives with various constraints on how the service is delivered.
The TE-service mapping model [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang] is used to bind the L3SM with TE-specific parameters. This binding facilitates seamless service operation and enables visibility of the underlay TE network. The TE-service model developed in that document can also be extended to support other services including L2SM, and the Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM) [I-D.ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang] L1CSM network service models.
Figure 4 shows the relationship between the models discussed above.
-------------- -------------- | L3SM |<=======| | ---------- -------------- augment| |..........>| ACTN VN | -------------- | Augmented | reference ---------- | L2SM |<=======| Service | -------------- augment| Model | ---------- -------------- | |..........>| TE-topo | | L1CSM |<=======| | reference ---------- -------------- augment| | -------------- | | ---------- | TE & Service |------->| |..........>| TE-tunnel| | Mapping Types| import -------------- reference ---------- --------------
Figure 4: TE-Service Mapping
The ACTN VN KPI telemetry model [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics] provides a way for a consumer to define performance monitoring relevant for its VN/network slice via the NETCONF subscription mechanisms [RFC8639], [RFC8640] or the equivalent mechanisms in RESTCONF [RFC8641], [RFC8650].
Key characteristics of [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics] include:
This document makes no requests for action by IANA.
Network slicing involves the control of network resources in order to meet the service requirements of consumers. In some deployment models, the consumer is able to directly request modification in the behaviour of resources owned and operated by a service provider. Such changes could significantly affect the service provider's ability to provide services to other consumers. Furthermore, the resources allocated for or consumed by a consumer will normally be billable by the service provider.
Therefore, it is crucial that the mechanisms used in any network slicing system allow for authentication of requests, security of those requests, and tracking of resource allocations.
It should also be noted that while the partitioning or slicing of resources is virtual, the consumers expect and require that there is no risk of leakage of data from one slice to another, no transfer of knowledge of the structure or even existence of other slices, and that changes to one slice (under the control of one consumer) should not have detrimental effects on the operation of other slices (whether under control of different or the same consumers) beyond the limits allowed within the SLA. Thus, slices are assumed to be private and to provide the appearance of genuine physical connectivity.
ACTN operates using the NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040] protocols and assumes the security characteristics of those protocols. Deployment models for ACTN should fully explore the authentication and other security aspects before networks start to carry live traffic.
Thanks to Qin Wu, Andy Jones, Ramon Casellas, and Gert Grammel for their insight and useful discussions about network slicing.
The following people contributed text to this document.
Young Lee Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com Mohamed Boucadair Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Sergio Belotti Email: sergio.belotti@nokia.com Daniele Ceccarelli Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com Adrian Farrel adrian@olddog.co.uk