Internet DRAFT - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
teas R. Rokui
Internet-Draft Nokia
Intended status: Informational S. Homma
Expires: March 13, 2021 NTT
K. Makhijani
Futurewei
LM. Contreras
Telefonica
J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
September 9, 2020
IETF Definition of Transport Slice
draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-04
Abstract
This document describes the definition of a slice in the transport
networks and its characteristics. The purpose here is to bring
clarity and a common understanding of the transport slice concept and
describe related terms and their meaning. It explains how transport
slices can be used in combination with end to end network slices, or
independently.
Status of This Memo
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 March 13, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition and Scope of Transport Slice . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Transport Slice System Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Service Level Objectives for Transport Slices . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Minimal Set of SLOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. Other Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Transport Slice Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Transport Slice Connectivity Types . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Vertical Composition of Transport Slice . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Horizontal Composition of Transport Slice . . . . . . . . 11
5. Transport Slice Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Transport Slice Controller Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Transport slice Realization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Isolation in Transport Slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Traffic Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Dedicated Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Relationship with End-to-End Network Slicing . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
A number of use cases benefit from establishing network connectivity
providing transport and assurance of a specific set of network
resources. In this document, as detailed in the subsequent sections,
we refer to this connectivity and resource commitment as the
transport slice. Services that might benefit from the transport
slices include but not limited to:
o 5G services (e.g. eMBB, URLLC, mMTC)(See [TS.23.501-3GPP])
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
o Network wholesale services
o Network infrastructure sharing among operators
o NFV connectivity and Data Center Interconnect
This document defines the concept of transport slices that provide
connectivity with a specific commitment of network resources between
a number of end points over a shared network infrastructure.
1.1. Rationale
Transport slices are created and managed within the scope of one or
more underlying network technologies (e.g., IP, MPLS, optical).
Transport slices are expected to enable a diverse set of applications
that have different requirements to coexist on the same network
infrastructure.
Transport slice is described as a construct that specifies
connectivity requirements, emphasizing on assurance of those
requirements. Transport slice is unaware of the underlying
infrastructure connectivity (hence, the term "transport"). The types
of underlying networking technologies can be based on any combination
of IP, Ethernet, MPLS, and optical technologies. Transport slices
also include specification of resources related to network functions
required by customer applications.
Traditionally, VPNs have focussed on segmentation, i.e., creation and
management of the private networks. They are bound to a specific
traffic type and are technology specific. In contrast, transport
slices concern with the assurance of resources required from the
network and provide a common user interface for describing those
resources. A service provider can use many aspects of the VPNs to
build the transport slices.
Transport slices relate to a more general topic of network slicing.
It is not the goal of this document to define this broader concept,
but in general, it is to identify the methodology to describe the
logical (or abstract) partitioning of network resources associated
with a service or an application.
2. Terms and Abbreviations
The terms and abbreviations used in this document are listed below.
o E2E NS: End to End Network Slice
o TS: Transport Slice
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
o TSC: Transport Slice Controller
o EP: Endpoint
o EU: End User
o NBI: NorthBound Interface
o SBI: SouthBound Interface
o SLI: Service Level Indicator A well defined quantitative measure
of some aspect of the level of service that is provided.
o SLO: Service Level Objective A target value or range of values for
a service level that is measured by an SLI. A natural structure
for SLOs is thus SLI <= target, or lower bound <= SLI <= upper
bound.
o SLA: Service Level Agreement An explicit or implicit contract with
the end users that includes consequences of meeting (or missing)
the SLOs they contain.
The above terminology is described in greater detail in the remainder
of this document.
3. Definition and Scope of Transport Slice
The definition of a transport slice is as follows:
"A transport slice is a logical network topology connecting a number
of endpoints with a set of shared or dedicated network resources,
that are used to satisfy specific Service Level Objectives (SLOs)".
The text below describes transport slices in more details.
Transport slice specification is technology-agnostic, and the means
for transport slice realization can be chosen depending on several
factors such as: service requirements, specifications or capabilities
of underlying infrastructure. The structure and different
characteristics of transport slices are described in the following
sections.
The term "transport" in transport slice is derived from the
definition of Transport Network in the section 1.3.1 of [RFC5921] : A
Transport Network provides transparent transmission of user traffic
between attached client devices by establishing and maintaining
point-to-point or point-to-multipoint connections between such
devices. "Slice" refers to a set of characteristics that separate
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
one type of user-traffic from other types. Transport slice assumes
that an underlying transport network is capable of changing the
configurations of the network devices on demand, through in-band
signaling or via controller(s) and to provide transport transmissions
with fulfilling all or some of SLOs to all of the traffic in the
slice or to specific flows.
4. Transport Slice System Characteristics
The following subsections describe the characteristics needed for
support of transport slices.
4.1. Service Level Objectives for Transport Slices
A transport slice is defined in terms of several quantifiable
characteristics or service level objectives (SLOs). These objectives
define a set of network resource parameters or values necessary to
provide a service as requested for a given transport slice. SLOs do
not describe 'how' the transport slices will be implemented or
realized in the underlying network layers. Instead, they are defined
in terms of dimensions of operations (time, capacity, etc.),
availability and other attributes. A transport slice can have one or
more SLOs associated with it, all SLO's combined to form an SLA. The
SLO values are defined unidirectionally and for specific subsets of
two or more endpoints (i.e. for a subset of connections in transport
slice).
The SLOs and values associated with them that are exposed to the end
user, are in the form of Service Level Indicators (SLIs). If for
example the range of latencies a network can provide is 50ms-100ms,
then this would be the range of values the end user should be able to
request, it would be as low as 50ms or as high as 100ms or anything
in between. The values of requested SLOs should always be in the
range of values supported. The underlying networks must provide
means to monitor and measure the performance of transport slices
against the SLOs requested and verify that they are being met. Some
SLOs can be measured directly through a collection of metrics and
statistics from the network (commonly known as 'telemetry'), while
others are deduced from measurable objectives and may require
additional tools or mechanisms to measure their target values.
4.1.1. Minimal Set of SLOs
This document defines a minimal set of SLOs and later systems or
standards could extend this set and define more SLOs. For example,
we included Guaranteed bandwidth which is the minimum requested
bandwidth for the transport slice. The later standard might define
other SLOs related to bandwidth if needed.
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
Accordingly, SLOs can be categorized in to 'Directly Measurable
Objectives' or 'Indirectly Measurable Objectives' as follows:
Some of the 'Directly Measurable Objectives' are:
o Guaranteed Minimum Bandwidth
o Guaranteed Maximum Latency
o Maximum permissible delay variation
o Maximum permissible packet loss rate
o Availability
o Other objectives could be specified
Some of the 'Indirectly Measurable Objectives' are:
o Security
o others objectives such as geographical restrictions, maximum
occupancy level, etc. could be specified
The definition of these objectives are as follows:
o Guaranteed Minimum Bandwidth: Minimum guaranteed bandwidth between
two endpoints at any time. The bandwidth is measured in data rate
units of bits per second and is measured unidirectionally.
o Guaranteed Maximum Latency: Upper bound of network latency when
transmitting between two endpoints. The latency is measured in
terms of network characteristics (excluding application-level
latency). [RFC2681] and [RFC7679] discuss round trip times and
one-way metrics, respectively.
o Maximum permissible delay variation: Packet delay variation (PDV)
as defined by [RFC3393], is measured by the difference in the one-
way delay between sequential packets in a flow. Minimizing
variations in the delay is important for real-time applications.
o Maximum permissible packet loss rate: is defined by the ratio of
packets dropped to packets transmitted between two endpoints. See
[RFC7680]
o Availability: is defined as the ratio of uptime to
total_time(uptime+downtime), where uptime is the time the
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
transport slice is available in accordance with the SLOs
associated with it.
o Security: This objective may request for encryption [RFC4303]
between two end-points explicitly to meet architecture
recommendations as in [TS33.210] or for compliance with [HIPAA]
[PCI]. Other security requests may be made as specified in
[draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability].
* Note: Security violations are not directly observable and
cannot be measured as quantifiable metrics. Still, the user of
the transport slice should be able to request certain criteria
for compliance and identify exceptions and unexpected traffic.
For this purpose [i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model] can be
leveraged.
4.1.2. Other Objectives
Additional objectives, such as certain geographical restrictions or
well defined domains that a slice may transit may be necessary.
Optionally, when the customer is traffic aware, other traffic
specific characteristics may be provided. These include for example,
MTU, traffic-type (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet or unstructured), or a
higher-level behavior to process traffic according to user-
application (which may be realized using network functions).
Maximal occupancy for a transport slice should be provided. Since it
carries traffic for multiple flows between the two endpoints, the
objectives should also say if they are for the entire connection,
group of flows or on per flow basis. Maximal occupancy should
specify the scale of the flows (i.e. maximum number of accommodatable
flows) and optionally a maximum number of countable resource units,
e.g IP or MAC addresses a slice might consume.
With these objectives incorporated, a customer sees transport slice
as a dedicated network for its exclusive use. Achieving this may
require explicit request for different types of isolation in provider
networks as described in Section 6.
Additional description of slice attributes is covered in a broader
context of 'Generic Network Slice Template' in
[I-D.contreras-teas-slice-nbi].
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
4.2. Transport Slice Endpoints
The transport slice endpoints are the conceptual entities that
perform any required conversion, or adaptation, and forwarding of the
user traffic. The characteristics of the transport slice endpoints
(TSE) are:
o They are conceptual points of connection of a network function,
device or application to the transport slice
o They are identified in a request provided by the customer of
transport slice (i.e. higher level operation systems) during the
creation of the transport slice
o They are associated with a device, application and/or network
function nodes. A non-exhaustive list of such nodes are routers,
switches, firewalls, WAN, 4G/5G RAN nodes, 4G/5G Core nodes,
application acceleration, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), server
load balancers, NAT44 [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], HTTP header
enrichment functions, and TCP optimizers
o A TSE is identified by its associated node (its IP address, name ,
ID, etc.), a unique identifier and/or a unique name and other
data. A non-exhaustive list of other data includes IP address (v4
or v6), VLAN, port, connectivity type (P2P, P2MP, MP2MP). TBD for
more
Note that the TSE is different from access points (AP) defined in
[RFC8453] as an AP is a logical identifier to identify the shared
link between the customer and the operator where as TSE is an
identifier of an endpoint. Also TSE is different from TE Link
Termination Point (LTP) defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo] as it
is a conceptual point of connection of a TE node to one of the TE
links on a TE node.
The TSE is similar to the Termination Point (TP) defined in [RFC8345]
and can contain more attributes. TSE could be modeled by augmenting
the TP model.
There is another type of the endpoints called "Transport Slice
Realization endpoints (TSREs)". These endpoints are allocated and
assigned by the network controller during the realization of a
transport slice and are technology-specific, i.e. they depend on the
network technology used during the transport slice realization. They
are identified by a node and some associated data. A non-exhaustive
list of nodes containing TSREs are routers, switches, PON nodes,
Wireless nodes and Optical devices.
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
Note that there will be a mapping between TSE and TSRE on Transport
Slice Controller (TSC). When TSC receives a request via its NBI to
create a transport slice between multiple TSEs, it will send the
request via its SBI to realize the transport slice. The TSRE will be
notified by network controller during TS realization to enable
mapping between TSREs and the TSEs.
Figure 1 shows an example of a transport slice and its realization
between multiple TSEs and TSREs.
(-------------------)
( Transport Network )
DAN1 ( ) DAN2
-------- TSRE1 -------- -------- TSRE2 --------
| o |-------o| A | | B |o--------| o |
| TSE1| -------- -------- | TSE2 |
-------- | ( ) | --------
| | ( ) | |
| | (-------------------) | |
| | | |
| | <=============================> | |
| Transport slice realization |
| between TSRE1 and TSRE2 |
| |
| <===================================================> |
Transport slice between TSE1 and TSE2 with SLO1
Legend:
DAN: Device, application and/or network function
Figure 1: A transport slice between TSEs and its realization between
TSREs
4.2.1. Transport Slice Connectivity Types
The transport slices connection types can be point to point (P2P),
point to multipoint (P2MP), multi-point to point (MP2P), or multi-
point to multi-point (MP2MP). The transport slice connection type
will requested by the higher level operation system.
4.3. Vertical Composition of Transport Slice
Transport slice may follow a hierarchical relationship to provide a
vertical structure to it. This is used for composing multi-layer
slices in which each layer provides an abstraction, as well as an
independent monitoring, performance, control and management of the
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
resources. The vertical transport slice characteristic could be used
in 2 forms:
o The Transport slice itself where it represents a hierarchy of
abstracted transport slices. In this case, the realization will
be done just once with a particular technology. Thus, the lowest
transport slice in the hierarchy that can not be decomposed
further will be one to one mapping to its instance of the realized
transport slice.
o Each layer (physical, datalink, or IP) has its own set of
resources that can be provided to the upper layer as a transport
slice. Thus, transport slice at one layer is used by the layer
above. This type of multi-layer vertical transport slice
associates resources at different layers. For example, an IP
transport slice would utilize one or more optical transport slice.
In this case, the realization will be done for a particular
technology at that particular layer. Thus, the lowest transport
slice in this type of hierarchy that can not be decomposed further
will be an instance of realized physical layer transport slice.
<======================== TS1 ========================>
<=====TS11=======> <==============TS12===============>
<====TS121====> <=====TS122======>
.--. .--. .--.
( )--. ( )--. ( )--.
.' ' .' ' .' '
[EU-x] ( Network-1 ) ( Network-2 ) ... ( Network-3 ) [EU-y]
`-----------' `-----------' `----------'
| | |
| Operator-y | Operator-z |
Legend:
TSnnn: Level 3 vertical transport slice nnn
TSnn: Level 2 vertical transport slice nn
TSn: Level 1 transport Slice n
Figure 2: Transport Slice Vertical and Horizontal Composition
Figure 2 shows the transport slice hierarchy. Slices TS11 and TS12
are composed together to form TS1 that is the top level transport
slice definition, TS121 and TS122 collectively define TS12. The SLO
for bandwidth guarantee will be shared and latency guarantee will be
split into latency in networks 2 and 3. To emphasize the
hierarchical structure, consider Network-2 and Network-3 are in the
same administrative domain but use different transport technologies
respectively. Then instead of presenting 2 transport slices,
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
Operator-z can expose only one transport slice TS12 abstracting the
underlying transport technology details.
Note: The specification to connect TS121 and TS122 are similar to
those connecting TS12 and TS11.
4.4. Horizontal Composition of Transport Slice
In contrast, horizontal transport slices enable the composition of
multiple realized transport slices. Since transport slices are not
necessarily a single encapsulation tunnel and may traverse through
different data planes, each realized transport slice will require a
stitching, interworking or mapping function. These stitching
functions can be viewed as a type of intermediate network function
endpoints. For instance in Figure 2, TS11 and TS12 are horizontal
transport slices. If we assume that TS11 is an L2 tunnel and TS12 is
an SRV6 based path, then a 'Service type EP' (not shown in the
figure) is needed for translation.
Author's notes: This service type EP is a new type of transport slice
specific service function. We may call it transport slice gateway.
5. Transport Slice Structure
A transport slice is a set of connections among various endpoints to
form a logical network that meets the SLOs agreed upon.
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
____________________________
[EP11]------/ /--[EP21]
/ /
[EP12]----/ Transport Slice /----[EP22]
: / (SLOs e.g. /
: / B/W > x bps, Delay < y ms)/
[EP1m]-/___________________________/-------[EP2n]
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
.--. .--.
[EP11] ( )- . ( )- . [EP21]
.' ' SLO .' '
[EP12] ( Network-1 ) ... ( Network-p ) [EP22]
: `-----------' `-----------' :
[EP1m] [EP2n]
Legend
SLOs in terms of attributes, e.g. BW, delay.
EP: Endpoint
B/W: Bandwidth
Figure 3: Transport slice
Figure 3 illustrates a case where a transport slice provides
connectivity between a set of endpoints pairs with specific
characteristics for each SLO (e.g. guaranteed minimum bandwidth of x
bps and guaranteed delay of less than y ms). The endpoints may be
distributed in the underlay networks, and a transport slice can be
deployed across multiple network domains. Also, the endpoints on the
same transport slice may belong to the same address space.
Transport slices involve both customer's and provider's views. A
customer 'describes' its requirements in terms of connectivity with
specific SLOs. Provider networks address those requirements through
'transport slice realization' (its implementation) using provider
network specific technologies.
A transport slice is requested from an entity (such as an
orchestrator or a system-wide controller) performing broader service
or application specific functions. The interface from such an entity
should express the needed connectivity in a technology-agnostic way
and donot need to recognize configurations based on the technologies
(e.g. being more declarative than imperative). The request to
instantiate a transport slice is only represented with some
indicators such as SLOs based on which the underlying technologies
are selected and managed.
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
Often, in other SDOs the term sub-slice or slice-subnet comes up.
Some of those are mapped to transport network requirements in the
form of a transport slice. With in the scope of transport slices
(w.r.t. the IP/MPLS based transport networks) there are no
definitions for 'sub-slice' or 'slice subnets'. 'Transport slice'
term universally represents SLO and connectivity requirements from
the transport networks.
Furthermore, the structure of transport slices may be layered
vertically or composed horizontally, i.e. operationally, a transport
slice maybe decomposed in two or more transport slices which are then
independently realized and managed. This is further described in
Section 4.3.
5.1. Stakeholders
A transport slice and its realization involves the following
stakeholders and it is relevant to define them for consistent
terminology.
Customer or User: A customer is a user of a transport slice.
Customers may request monitoring of associated resources or
specific changes. A user may either directly manage its service
by interfacing with the transport slice controller or indirectly
through an orchestrator.
Orchestrator: An orchestrator is an entity that composes different
services, resource and network requirements. It interfaces with
the transport slice controllers.
Transport Slice Controller (TSC): It realizes a transport slice in
the network, maintains and monitors the run-time state of
resources and topologies associated with it. A well-defined
interface is needed between different types of transport slice
controllers and different types of orchestrators. A transport
slice operator (or slice operator for short) manages one or more
transport slices using the Transport Slice Controller(s).
Transport Network Controller: is a form of network infrastructure
controller that offers network resources to TSC to realize a
particular transport slice. These may be existing network
controllers associated with one or more specific technologies that
may be adapted to the function of realizing transport slices in a
network.
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
5.2. Transport Slice Controller Interfaces
The interworking and interoperability among the different
stakeholders to provide common means of provisioning, operating and
monitoring the transport slices is a mandatory requirement. The
following communication interfaces are identified (see Figure 4).
TSC Northbound Interface (NBI): The TSC Northbound Interface is an
interface between a higher level operation system, e.g. 'E2E
network slice orchestrator' and the 'Transport slice controller'.
It is a technology agnostic interface. Over this NBI, slice
characteristics and other requirements can be communicated to TSC
and the operational state of a transport slice may be requested.
TSC Southbound Interface (SBI): The TSC Southbound Interface is an
interface between 'Transport slice controller (TSC)' and network
controller(s). These interfaces are technology-specific and
utilize many of the network models.
+------------------------------------------+
| Customer |
+------------------------------------------+
A
|
V
+------------------------------------------+
| A higher level operation system |
| (e.g e2e network slice orchestrator) |
+------------------------------------------+
A
| TSC NBI
V
+------------------------------------------+
| Transport Slice Controller |
+------------------------------------------+
A
| TSC SBI
V
+------------------------------------------+
| Network Controller(s) |
+------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Interface of Transport Slice Controller
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
5.3. Transport slice Realization
Realization of a Transport Slice is a mapping of underlying
infrastructure with its definition. It is a technology specific
entity that is created and maintained over its southbound interfaces.
The Network controller(s) export the connectivity and resource
mappings to the TSC. The network controller abstracts the details of
underlying resources from the TSC.
The realization can be achieved in the form of either physical or
logical connectivity through VPNs, a variety of tunneling
technologies such as Segment Routing, SFC, etc. Accordingly,
endpoints may be realized as physical or logical service or network
functions.
6. Isolation in Transport Slices
6.1. Traffic Isolation
This section will describe the scope and use of term isolation.
6.2. Dedicated Resources
This section explains the scope and use of term dedicated resource in
the context of transport slices.
7. Relationship with End-to-End Network Slicing
An end-to-end (E2E) network slice is a complete logical network that
provides a service in its entirety with a specific assurance to the
customer. A transport slice concerns with those assurance aspects
only within the transport networks. Consider Figure 5, where a
network operator has an E2E network slice that traverses multiple
technology-specific networks. Each of these networks might use any
number of technologies, including but not limited to IP, MPLS, Fiber-
Optics (e.g. WDM, DWDM), Passive Optical Networking (PON),
Microwave, etc.
Each of these networks includes multiple (physical or virtual) nodes
and may also provide network functions beyond simply carrying of
technology-specific protocol data units. The types of nodes used in
any of these networks may include:
o Packet/frame processing nodes (e.g., Routers, Switches)
o Application servers
o Service Functions(e.g., Firewall, Loadbalancer)
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
o Radio Access Network (RAN) components
o Mobile Core components
o Microwave transceivers
o Optical repeaters
o etc.
Each network may support different technologies and an E2E network
slice is a combination of these networks. As an example:
o Network 1 might contain multiple 5G RAN nodes connected to a few
Cell Site Gateways (CSG) routers.
o Network 2 might have one or more layer-3 routers and layer-2
switches which may run on top of an optical network.
o Network 3 might have a number of 5G RAN nodes connected to Passive
Optical Network (PON) switches.
<======================= E2E NS ======================>
<-OS1-> <-TS1-> <-TS2-> <-OS2-> ... <-TSn-> <-OSm->
|------------------------------------------------------|
| .--. .--. .--. |
| ( )--. ( )--. ( )--. |
| .' ' .' ' .' ' |
[EU-x] | ( Network-1 ) ( Network-2 ) ... ( Network-p ) |[EU-y]
| `-----------' `-----------' `----------' |
| |
| Operator-z |
|------------------------------------------------------|
Legend:
E2E NS: End-to-end network slice
TSn: Transport Slice n
OSm: Other Slice m
EU-x: End User-x
EU-y: End User-y
Figure 5: E2E network slice
When operator-z creates a specific E2E network slice, it may create
one or more of transport slices and other slices (application logic
or other system functions).
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
An independent E2E logical network (called E2E network slice) is
created for a service (e.g. CCTV, autonomous driving, HD map, etc.)
with a specific network SLOs, e.g. a secure connection with an E2E
latency less than 5ms, from End User-x (EU-x) to End User-y (EU-y).
EU-x maybe a 5G user equipment such as an infotainment unit in a car,
CCTV, or a car for autonomous driving, etc. and EU-y in 5G is 5G
application server, IMS, etc.
In Figure 5, "E2E NS" is that logical network with requested SLO
between EU-x to EU-y and is associated with a customer and a specific
service type.
8. Security Considerations
Not applicable in this memo.
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. Acknowledgment
The entire TEAS NS design team and everyone participating in those
discussion has contributed to this draft. Particularly, Eric Gray,
Xufeng Liu, Jie Dong, and Jari Arkko for a thorough review among
other contributions.
11. Informative References
[HIPAA] HHS, "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
- The Security Rule", February 2003,
<https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/
index.html>.
[I-D.contreras-teas-slice-nbi]
Contreras, L., Homma, S., and J. Ordonez-Lucena,
"Considerations for defining a Transport Slice NBI",
draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-01 (work in progress),
March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo]
Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V., Saad, T., Shah, H., and
O. Dios, "YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE)
Topologies", draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-22 (work in
progress), June 2019.
[PCI] PCI Security Standards Council, "PCI DSS", May 2018,
<https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org>.
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.
[RFC7680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>.
[RFC8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>.
[RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453>.
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-nsdt-transport-slice-definition September 2020
[TS.23.501-3GPP]
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), "3GPP TS 23.501
(V16.2.0): System Architecture for the 5G System (5GS);
Stage 2 (Release 16)", September 2019,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/
archive/23_series/23.501/23501-g20.zip>.
[TS33.210]
3GPP, "3G security; Network Domain Security (NDS); IP
network layer security (Release 14).", December 2016,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=2279>.
Authors' Addresses
Reza Rokui
Nokia
Canada
Email: reza.rokui@nokia.com
Shunsuke Homma
NTT
Japan
Email: shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com
Kiran Makhijani
Futurewei
USA
Email: kiranm@futurewei.com
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Jeff Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Rokui, et al. Expires March 13, 2021 [Page 19]
