Applicability of IETF-Defined Service and Network Data Models for Network Slice Service Management
draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation-09
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Samier Barguil , Luis M. Contreras , Victor Lopez , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Mohamed Boucadair , Reza Rokui | ||
| Last updated | 2024-04-15 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation-09
TEAS S. Barguil, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia
Intended status: Informational L.M. Contreras, Ed.
Expires: 12 August 2024 Telefonica
V. Lopez
Nokia
O. Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica
M. Boucadair
Orange
R. Rokui
Ciena
15 April 2024
Applicability of IETF-Defined Service and Network Data Models for
Network Slice Service Management
draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation-09
Abstract
This document exemplifies how the various data models that are
produced in the IETF can be combined in the context of Network Slice
Services delivery.
Specifically, this document describes the relationship between the
Network Slice Service models for requesting Network Slice Services
and both Service (e.g., the L3VPN Service Model, the L2VPN Service
Model) and Network (e.g., the L3VPN Network Model, the L2VPN Network
Model) models used during their realizations. In addition, this
document describes the communication between a Network Slice
Controller (NSC) and the network controllers for the realization of
Network Slices.
The Network Slice Service YANG model provides a customer-oriented
view of the intended Network slice Service. Thus, once an NSC
receives a request for a Slice Service request, the NSC has to map it
to accomplish the specific objectives expected by the network
controllers. Existing YANG network models are analyzed against
Network Slice requirements, and the gaps in existing models are
identified.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
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 12 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. A Reference Architecture and Main Components . . . . . . . . 4
3. RFC XXXX Network Slice Requirements and Data Models . . . . . 8
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Downlink Throughput/Uplink Throughput . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Protection Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Packet Loss Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Relationship Between RFC XXXX Network Slice Service YANG Model
Parameters and those in Lx Service and Network Models . . 11
5.1. Relationship Between RFC XXXX Network Slice Service Model
Parameters and The L3SM and L2SM Parameters . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Relationship Between RFC XXXX Network Slice Service Model
Parameters and the L3NM and L2NM Parameters . . . . . . . 15
6. RFC XXXX Network Slice Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. RFC XXXX Network Slice Provisioning Workflow . . . . . . 18
6.2. LxVPN Network Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Traffic Engineering Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
6.4. Traffic Engineering Service Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Potential Models Usage in Alternative RFC XXXX NSC
Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. RFC XXXX Network Slice Service Requested to Hierarchical
Network Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. RFC XXXX Network Slice Service Requested to Network Slice
Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.3. Network Slice Controller as Part of the Domain
Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
The IETF has produced several YANG data models that are instrumental
for automating the provisioning and delivery of connectivity
services. An overview of these data models and a framework that
describes how these various modules can be used together are
described in [RFC8969].
This document adopts the rationale of [RFC8969], but with a focus on
the Network Slice Service [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
For example, the Network Slice Service YANG service model provides a
customer-oriented view of the Network Slice Service. Once an RFC
XXXX Network Slice controller (NSC) receives a Slice Service request,
it needs to map it into the underlying network capabilities to
accomplish the intended service in a way understandable by the
network controller.
Several service models and network models, including the L3VPN
Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8299], the L2VPN Service Model (L2SM)
[RFC8466], and network models (e.g., the L3VPN Network Model (L3NM)
[RFC9182], the L2VPN Network Model (L2NM) [RFC9291]) which may be
utilized for the realization of RFC XXXX Network Slice Services, are
analyzed whether they can satisfy the RFC XXXX Network Slice
requirements.
The document also identifies some gaps related to existing models.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
The document outlines an architecture and communication process
between an NSC and other network controllers for managing RFC XXXX
Network Slice Services, including creation and modification.
| Note to the RFC Editor: Please replace "RFC XXXX" with the RFC
| number assigned to I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices.
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the contents
of [RFC6241], [RFC7950], [RFC8309], and
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices] as it uses terms from those RFCs.
This document uses the term "network model" as defined in Section 2.1
of [RFC8969].
2. A Reference Architecture and Main Components
As described in [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices], the NSC is a key
functional entity for the control and management of RFC XXXX Network
Slices Services. As shown in Figure 1, an NSC exposes a set of APIs
for higher level systems to request an RFC XXXX Network Slice
Service. These APIs can be used to manage other connectivity
services, such as managing the underlying delivery setup that that is
required for the delivery of an RFC XXXX Network Slice Service. Such
a setup can be managed prior or during the process of the
provisioning of a Network Service Slice. Concretely, the setup
includes the management of bearers and attachment circuits that
connect Service Demarcation Points (SDPs) to customer premises.
The NSC customer-facing interface is invoked by a customer for
managing an RFC XXXX Network Slice Service (i.e., creation,
modification, or deletion). Upon receiving a request via a customer-
facing interface, an NSC assesses whether it can satisfy the request
and then identifies the resources that are needed for realization of
the RFC XXXX Network Slice Service. The network-facing interface is
used to interact with one or more Network Controllers for the
realization of the requested RFC XXXX Network Slice Service.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
An NSC exposes a set of RFC XXXX service data models: mainly, the RFC
XXXX Network Slice Service Interface
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang] or the Attachment
Circuit-as-a-Service Interface
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit].
Network Controllers exposes to NSCs a set of network data models,
such as the L3NM, the L2NM, or the Service Attachment Points (SAPs)
[RFC9408]. Typically, by setting the service type to "network-
slice", an NSC can retrieve via the SAPs where Slice Services can be
delivered to customers. Likewise, SAPs can also be used to retrieve
where such services are delivered to customers through the network
configuration described in the L3NM [RFC9182] or the L2NM [RFC9291].
These checks can be used as part of request feasibility checks.
This document focuses on how an NSC can be implemented in an
operator's network.
+------------------------------------------+
| A higher level system |
| (e.g., E2E Network Slice orchestrator) |
+------------------------------------------+
A
| NSC Customer-facing APIs
V Customer Service Models
+------------------------------------------+
| RFC XXXX Network Slice Controller (NSC) |
+------------------------------------------+
A
| NSC Network-facing APIs
V Network Models
+------------------------------------------+
| Network Controller(s) |
+------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Network Slice Controllers as a Module of a Hierarchical SDN
Controller.
Several architectural definitions have arisen on the IETF to support
SDN and network slicing deployments. The architecture defined in
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices] includes a three-level hierarchy.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
The figure 2 depicts a possible architecture using similar concepts.
It starts from a consumer or high-level operational systems. Then,
the NSC function might be part of a hierarchical network controller
(e.g., as the MDSC in the ACTN context [RFC8453]) as a modular
function. As an alternative, tn the {{fig2}} at the bottom, multiple
network controllers can be orchestrated from the NSC. Each Network
controller can handle multiple or single underlay technologies.
+------------------------------+
| High-level operation system. |
+--------------+---------------+
|RFC XXXX Network Slice
| Service Request
+-------------------v------------------+
| |
| Hierarchical Network |
| Controller/Orchestrator |
| |
| +-------------------------------+ |
| | RFC XXXX NSC | |
| +-------------------------------+ |
| |
+-------------------+------------------+
|
|
+--------------+---------------+
| |
v v
+-------------+----------+ +-------------+----------+
| Network Controller | | Network Controller |
+-------------+----------+ +-------------+----------+
| |
| |
v v
Network Elements Network Elements
Figure 2: RFC XXXX Network Slice Controller as a Module of a
Hierarchical SDN Controller.
In other implementations, an NSC can be a standalone component that
directly interact with a network controller, as depicted in figure 3.
In this scenario, a service request follows a "data-enrichment" path,
where each entity adds more information to the service request.
This document describes how existing service models and network
models interact to deliver a Network Slice Service in a service
provider environment.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
+-------------------------------+
| High-level operation system |
+-------------+-----------------+
|RFC XXXX Network Slice Request
|
+-------------v-----------------+
| RFC XXXX NSC |
+-------------+-----------------+
|
|
+-------------v-----------------+
| Network Controller |
+-------------+-----------------+
|
|
v
Network Elements
Figure 3: RFC XXXX Network Slice Controller as a Standalone Component
Alternatively, an NSC can be integrated with a network controller and
directly realizes the Network Slice Services using device data models
to configure the network devices. A sample architecture is depicted
in figure 4.
+-------------------------------+
| High-level operation system |
+-------------+-----------------+
|RFC XXXX Network Slice Request
|
+-------------v----------------+
| Network Controller |
| |
|+----------------------------+|
|| Network Slice Controller ||
|+----------------------------+|
| |
+-------------+----------------+
|
|
v
Network Elements
Figure 4: RFC XXXX Network Slice Controller as a Module of a Network
Controller.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
3. RFC XXXX Network Slice Requirements and Data Models
The main requirements for an RFC XXXX Network Slice Service, based on
the high-level slice requirements from multiple organizations and use
cases are compiled in [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-use-cases].
To accomplish those requirements, a set of YANG data models have been
proposed:
* [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]: A YANG data model for
RFC XXXX Network Slice Service.
* [RFC9181]: specifies a set of reusable types and groupings to
manage VPN services; VPN is used to realize slices.
* [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac]: specifies a set of reusable
types and groupings to manage Attachment Circuits (ACs).
* [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit]: specifies YANG data
models for managing 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS) and
also bearers. These ACs and bearers are used to identify where to
deliver a Network Slice Service.
* [RFC9408]: defines a YANG data model for representing an abstract
view of the provider network topology that contains the points
from which its services can be attached (e.g., Network Slices). A
SAP network topology can be used for one or multiple service types
('service-type'). Setting this data node to 'network-slice'
allows a controller to expose where RFC XXXX Network Slices
services are being delivered. It can also be used to check where
RFC XXXX Network Slice services can be delivered.
* [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit] augments the SAP model
with more details for managing ACs at the network level.
* [I-D.dhody-teas-ietf-network-slice-mapping] specifies an RFC XXXX
Network Slice Service mapping YANG model.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
+---------------+
| Customer |
+-------+-------+
Customer Service Model |
e.g., slice-svc, ac-svc,| and bearer-svc
+-------+-------+
| Service |
| Orchestration |
+-------+-------+
Network Model |
e.g., l2vpn-ntw, l3vpn-ntw, sap, and | ac-ntw
+-------+-------+
| Network |
| Orchestration |
+-------+-------+
Network Configuration Model |
+-----------+-----------+
| |
+--------+------+ +--------+------+
| Domain | | Domain |
| Orchestration | | Orchestration |
+---+-----------+ +--------+------+
Device | | |
Configuration | | |
Model | | |
+----+----+ | |
| Config | | |
| Manager | | |
+----+----+ | |
| | |
| NETCONF/CLI..................
| | |
+--------------------------------+
+----+ Bearer | | Bearer +----+
|CE#1+--------+ Network +--------+CE#2|
+----+ AC | | AC +----+
+--------------------------------+
Site A Site B
Figure 5: Overview of Data Models used for Network Slicing
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
4. Operational Considerations
This section outlines the compliance and operational aspects of
Network Controller models with RFC XXXX Network Slice requirements.
Section presented the requirements of the RFC XXXX Network Slice. In
this subsection it is analyzed how available YANG models that can be
used by a Network Controller can satisfy those requirements and
identify gaps.
4.1. Availability
As per [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang], availability is a
probabilistic measure of the length of time that a VPN/VN instance
functions without a network failure. As per RFC 8330, The parameter
"availability", as described in [G.827], [F.1703], and [P.530], is
often used to describe the link capacity. The availability is a time
scale, representing a proportion of the operating time that the
requested bandwidth is ensured".
The calculation of the availability is not trivial and would need to
be clearly scoped to avoid misunderstandings.
The set of YANG models proposed today allow to request tunnels/paths
with different resiliency requirements in terms of protection and
restoration. However, none of them include the possibility of
requesting a specific availability (e.g. 99.9999%).
4.2. Downlink Throughput/Uplink Throughput
The LxNMs ([RFC9182] and [RFC9291]) allow to specify the bandwidth at
the interface level between the slice and the customer. In addition,
the Service Mapping model [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang]
allows to bind a VPN to a given LSP, which have its bandwidth
requirements. Additionally, TE models can force a give bandwidth in
the connection between Provider Edges.
Previous comment applies to the incoming and outgoing bandwidth
parameters required for the NFV-based services use case in
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-use-cases]. The Network sharing
use case has Maximum and Guaranteed Bit Rate parameters. These
parameters can be mapped to the TE tunnel models when setting up LSPs
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te].
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
4.3. Protection Scheme
Protection schemes are mechanisms to define how to setup resources
for a given connection. TE tunnel models [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te]
includes protection and restoration as two main attributes. The
parameters included in the containers for protection and restoration
cover the requirements of the RFC XXXX NS related with protection
schemes. Similarly, TE models cover the parameter 'recovery time'
for the network sharing use case.
4.4. Delay
Delay is a critical parameter for several RFC XXXX NS types. Every
use-case defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-use-cases]
contains delay constraints. 5G use cases require 'delay tolerance',
NFV-based services have the delay information within 'QoS metrics'
and 'Bounded latency' in the network sharing use case.
During the realization of the RFC XXXX Network Slice, these
parameters are part of the requirements of a TE tunnel configuration
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te]. They can be included within the 'path-
metric-bounds' parameter, so the created LSP fulfils the given
metrics bounds like 'path-metric-delay-average' or 'path-metric-
delay-minimum'.
4.5. Packet Loss Rate
The packet loss rate indicates the maximum rate for lost packets that
the service tolerates in the link. During the realization of the RFC
XXXX Network Slice, this attribute will influence the tunnel
selection and the value is included in the [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te]
document as the 'path-metric-loss". The 'path-metric-loss' is a
metric type, which measures the percentage of packet loss of all
links traversed by a P2P path. This parameter is required for 5G
services and network sharing use-case, while it is part of the 'QoS
metrics' for the NFV-based services.
5. Relationship Between RFC XXXX Network Slice Service YANG Model
Parameters and those in Lx Service and Network Models
5.1. Relationship Between RFC XXXX Network Slice Service Model
Parameters and The L3SM and L2SM Parameters
This section presents an initial analysis of the relationship between
the RFC XXXX Network Slice Service model parameters and the L3SM and
L2SM service model parameters.
The L3SM service parameters are defined in Section 6.2 of [RFC8299].
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
The following parameters are considered, so far:
Bandwidth: This parameter indicates the bandwidth requirement
between each CE and PE participating in the service, then
referring essentially to the required WAN link bandwidth. It is
expressed in terms of bits per second and individually specified
for both input and output. Despite it is not stated in RFC 8299,
this parameter can be interpreted as the CIR/PIR expected for the
CE - PE connection.
MTU: This parameter indicates the maximum PDU size expected for the
layer-3 service. It is relevant since packets could be discarded
in case the customer sends packets with longer MTU than the one
expressed by this parameter.
QoS: Regarding QoS, two different kind of parameters are detailed.
* QoS classification policy:This policy is used to classify the
traffic received from the customer, and it is expressed as a
set of ordered rules. It is used for marking the input traffic
(from CE to PE) when the customer flows match any of the rules
in the list, setting the appropriate target class of service
(target-class-id).
* QoS profile:This profile defines the traffic-scheduling to be
applied to the flows for either Site-to-WAN, WAN-to-Site, or
both directions. It contains the following information per
class of service: rate-limit, latency, jitter and guaranteed
bandwidth.
Multicast: This parameter identifies if the service is multicast,
and if so, what is the role of the site in the customer multicast
service topology (i.e., source, receiver, or both). It also
defines the kind of multicast relationship with the customer
(i.e., as a router requiring PIM, host requiring either Internet
Group Management Protocol (IGMP) or Multicast Label Distribution
Protocol (MLDP), or both), as well as the support of IPv4, IPv6 or
both.
Similarly, the L2SMs parameters are described in Sections 5.9 and
5.10 of [RFC8466].
Bandwidth: This parameter is related to the bandwidth between both
CE and PE and can be expressed as CIR/EIR/PIR, in the ingress or
egress direction, taking the CE as the point of reference.
MTU: This parameter refers to the maximum layer-2 PDU frame size.
QoS: The specification of the QoS follows a similar structure to the
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
one described in the case of L3SM. Some differences apply, for
instance, at the time of QoS classification, which is performed on
top of layer-2 parameters (e.g., MAC addresses).
Broadcast, unknown-unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic: This
parameter allows to determine if a site acts as source, receiver,
or both.
Availability: This parameter in the L2SM model relates to the
capability of supporting multi-homing.
On the other hand, the RFC XXXX Network Slice Service YANG module
supports a number of SLOs and SLEs in the form of Network Slice
Service policy attributes. Such policy can apply to per-Network
Slice, per-connection group or per-connection individually
(overriding of attributes is allowed as more granular information is
provided). The following SLO attributes are detailed:
* One-way/Two-way bandwidth, indicating the guaranteed minimum
bandwidth between any two NSEs (unidirectional / bidirectional).
* One-way/Two-way latency, indicating the guaranteed minimum latency
between any two NSEs (unidirectional / bidirectional).
* One-way/Two-way delay variation, indicating the maximum
permissible delay variation of the slice (unidirectional /
bidirectional).
* One-way/Two-way packet loss, indicating the maximum permissible
packet loss rate between endpoints (unidirectional /
bidirectional).
Additionally, the following SLEs are defined:
* MTU, referring to the maximum Protocol data unit (PDU) size that
the customer may use.
* Security, indicating if encryption or other security measures are
required between two endpoints.
* Isolation, as a way of indicating the isolation level expected by
the customer in the allocation of network resources.
* Maximum occupancy level, to express the amount of flows to be
admitted (and optionally a maximum number of countable resource
units such as IP or MAC addresses).
Thus, an initial mapping between the L3SM, L2SM, and RFC XXXX Network
Slice Service model can be performed as indicated in the following
table.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| L3SM (RFC 8299) | L2SM (RFC 8466) | RFC XXXX NSS YANG Model |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| Bandwidth | Bandwidth (CIR, PIR) | Sum of bandwidth SLO per |
| | | NSE counting all |
| | | connections |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| MTU | MTU | |
| (Layer 3 Service) | (Layer 2 Service) | MTU attribute in SLE |
| | | |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS | QoS | QoS |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS | QoS | Defined in the model as |
| classification | classification | network-access-qos- |
| Policy | Policy | policy-name |
| | | to be applied per |
| | | access-point |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS Profile | QoS Profile | |
| - rate-limit | - rate-limit | Defined in the model as |
| | | incoming/outgong |
| | | rate-limits per end-point|
| | | (or access-point) |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS Profile | QoS Profile | |
| - latency | - latency | One-way / Two-way |
| | | latency SLO |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS Profile | QoS Profile | |
| - jitter | - jitter | One-way / Two-way |
| | | delay variation SLO |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS Profile | QoS Profile | |
| - bandwidth | - bandwidth | One-way / Two-way |
| | | bandwidth SLO |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| Multicast | Broadcast, Unknown, | The need of replication |
| | Unicast and Multicast | can be inferred from |
| | (BUM) | ns-connectivity-type. |
| | | ns-connectivity-type. |
| | | Further |
| | | details are not |
| | | available (e.g. |
| | | source or receiver role).|
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| | Availability as dual | Availability as the ratio|
| | homing | of up-time to total_time |
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
| | | (up-time+ down-time). |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
Table 1: "Mapping of RFC XXXX Network Slice Service and The LxSM
Service Attribute"
The following considerations can be made:
* While the QoS profile in the L3SM and the L2SM applies per service
class, the parameters in the RFC XXXX Network Slice Service
Interface apply per connection. So if per- class granularity is
required in an RFC XXXX Network Slice, then different connections
have to be defined between the same end- points, one per service
class.
* A number of attributes are not defined in the L3SM nor the L2SM,
such as packet loss, isolation, or security. Then, the L3SM and
L2SM could not be sufficient to realize RFC XXXX Network Slice
Services with such specific needs, unless those other objectives
and expectations are provided by other means (e.g., realizing the
L3SM through technologies guaranteeing dedicated resource
allocation such as OTN).
5.2. Relationship Between RFC XXXX Network Slice Service Model
Parameters and the L3NM and L2NM Parameters
This section presents an initial analysis of the relationship between
RFC XXXX Network Slice Service model parameters and the L3NM and the
L2NM parameters.
The L3NM service parameters are defined in Section 7.6.6 of
[RFC9182].
As made in the previous section, some basic parameters are
considered:
* Bandwidth: The L3NM defines bandwidth in terms of the 'pe-to-ce-
bandwidth' and 'ce-to-pe-bandwidth'. Both values are defined in
absolute value in bps per interface. The model supports the usage
of QoS policies to include inbound and outbound Rate limits.
* MTU: The L3NM only supports the definition at the 'vpn-network-
access' level.
* QoS: The quality of service is differentiated in three-levels:
- QoS Profile: Allows the reference of an existing profile. The
profile creation is out-scope of the model.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
- QoS classification: Customize policy creation rules, including
quote name and upper and lower limits.
- QoS Action: Allows the filtering of incoming and outcoming rate
limits.
* Multicast: mVPN is supported at vpn-node and vpn-network-access;
Each level includes Rendezvous Point (RP), IGMP, PIM, and MLD
definitions.
Similarly, the L2NM parameters are described in Section 7.6.6 of
[RFC9291]:
* Bandwidth: The L2NM considers the same parameters 'pe-to-ce-
bandwidth' and 'ce-to-pe-bandwidth'. However, per definition, the
L2NM supports the differentiation of CIR, PIR values. It includes
the same set of values described for the L2SM.
* MTU: The L2NM differentiates among Service MTU and interface MTU.
The MTU mismatch configuration is also supported as part of the
'vpn-service' configuration.
* QoS: The quality of service is differentiated in two-levels:
- QoS Profile: Reference an existing profile. Creation is out-
scope of the model.
- QoS Classification: Customize policy creation rules, including
quote name and limits.
* Multicast: Discard options are available for unknown Broadcast,
Unicast or Multicast (BUM).
Thus, an initial mapping between the L3NM, L2NM, and RFC XXXX Network
Slice Service model can be performed as indicated in the following
table:
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| L3NM (RFC 9182) | L2NM (RFC 9291) | RFC XXXX NSS YANG Model |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| Bandwidth | Different types: | Sum of bandwidth SLO per |
| between | per CoS, per VPN net- | NSE counting all |
| Ce-PE | work-access, per site | connections |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| MTU | MTU | |
| (Layer 3 Service) | (Layer 2 Service) | MTU attribute in SLE |
| | | |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS | QoS | QoS |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS | QoS | Defined in the model as |
| classification | classification | network-access-qos- |
| Policy | Policy | policy-name |
| Based on layer 3 | Based on layer 2 | to be applied per |
| and 4 details | details | access-point |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS Profile | QoS Profile | |
| - rate-limit | - rate-limit | Defined in the model as |
| | | incoming/outgong |
| | | rate-limits per end-point|
| | | (or access-point) |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| QoS Profile | QoS Profile | |
| - Not Defined | - Not Defined | One-way / Two-way |
| | | latency SLO |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| Multicast | Broadcast, Unknown, | The need of replication |
| | Unicast and Multicast | can be inferred from |
| | (BUM) | ns-connectivity-type. |
| | | ns-connectivity-type. |
| | | Further |
| | | details are not |
| | | available (e.g. |
| | | source or receiver role).|
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
| | | Availability as the ratio|
| | | of up-time to total_time |
| | | (up-time + down-time). |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------+
Table 2: Mapping of RFC XXXX Network Slice Service and The LxNM
Service Attribute
6. RFC XXXX Network Slice Procedure
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
6.1. RFC XXXX Network Slice Provisioning Workflow
An RFC XXXX Network Slice may use several underlying technologies. A
new RFC XXXX Network Slice may be initiated following these steps:
1. A higher level system requests services with specific
characteristics via the customer-facing APIs
2. This request is processed by an NSC which specifies a mapping
between service request to any services, tunnels, and paths
models.
3. A series of requests for creation of services, tunnels and paths
will be sent to the network to realize the transport slice.
Variations of this flow can be considered: - The customer requests
bearers and attachment circuits, independent of any service that will
be delivered over them. - The customer place a service-specific
request with references to ACes. - The customer may update the
bearers/AC/service delivery points during the lifetime of a service.
As a functional entity responsible for managing a network domain, a
network controller can expose a set of YANG models to an NSC. An NSC
can invokes these models during the realization of an RFC XXXX
Network Slice Service. The following network models can be used for
realization of RFC XXXX Network slices:
* LxVPN network models: These models describe a VPN service from the
network point of view. It supports the creation of Layer 3 and
Layer 2 services using several control planes.
* Traffic Engineering models: These models allow to manipulate
Traffic Engineering tunnels within the network segment.
Technology-specific extensions allow to work with a desired
technology (e.g. MPLS RSVP-TE tunnels, Segment Routing paths, OTN
tunnels, etc.)
* TE Service Mapping extensions: These extensions allow to specify
for LxVPN the details of an underlay based on TE.
* ACLs and routing policies models: Even though ACLs and routing
policies are device models, its exposure in the Network Slice
Service of a domain controller allows to provide an additional
granularity that the network domain controller is not able to
infer on its own.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
6.2. LxVPN Network Models
The framework defined in [RFC8969] compiles a set of YANG data models
for automating network services. The data models can be used during
the service and network management life cycle (e.g., service
instantiation, service provisioning, service optimization, service
monitoring, service diagnosing, and service assurance). The so
called Network models could be reused for the realization of Network
slice requests.
The following models are examples of Network models that describe
services.
* [RFC9182]: A Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model
* [RFC9291]: A Layer 2 VPN Network YANG Model
6.3. Traffic Engineering Models
TEAS has defined a collection of models to allow the management of
Traffic Engineering tunnels:
* [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te]: A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering
Tunnels, Label Switched Paths and Interfaces. The model allows to
instantiate paths in a TE enabled network. Note that technology
augmented models are required for specific per-technology
instantiations.
6.4. Traffic Engineering Service Mapping
The IETF has defined a YANG model to set up the procedure to map VPN
service/network models to the TE models. This model, known as
service mapping, allows the network controller to assign/retrieve
transport resources allocated to specific services. At the moment
there is one service mapping model
[I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang]. The "Traffic Engineering
(TE) and Service Mapping Yang Model" augments the VPN service and
network models.
7. Potential Models Usage in Alternative RFC XXXX NSC Architectures
This section does not intend to be prescriptive but descriptive about
the potential usage of existing and proposed models for the provision
of an RFC XXXX Network Slice Service.
[I-D.contreras-teas-slice-controller-models] shows a potential
internal structure of an RFC XXXX Network Slice Controller which can
be divided into two components:
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
* RFC XXXX Network Slice Mapper: This high-level component processes
the customer request, putting it into the context of the overall
RFC XXXX Network Slices in the network.
* RFC XXXX Network Slice Realizer: This high-level component
processes the complete view of transport slices including the one
requested by the customer, decides the proper technologies for
realizing the RFC XXXX Network Slice and triggers its realization.
Note that this division in functional components of an RFC XXXX NSC
is provided as an implementation option, not constraining any other
implementation of functional structure.
Higher Level System
|
| NSC Network Slice Service
+-------------------------+
| NSC | |
| v |
| +-----------------+ |
| | | |
| | NS Mapper | |
| | | |
| +-----------------+ |
| | |
| v |
| +-----------------+ |
| | | |
| | NS Realizer | |
| | | |
| +-----------------+ |
| | |
+-------------------------+
| NSC SBI
v
Network Controllers
Figure 6: RFC XXXX Network Slice Controller Structure
The details of RFC XXXX Network Slice mapper and realize are provided
below for various implementation of NCS.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
7.1. RFC XXXX Network Slice Service Requested to Hierarchical Network
Controller
Referring to Figure 1 in an integrated architecture, an NCS is part
of a Hierarchical SDN controller module, the NSC's and the
Hierarchical Network Controller should share the same internal data
and the same Network Slice Service interface. Thus, the H-SDN module
must be able to:
* Map: The NSC should process the customer request received through
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]. The mapping process
takes the network-slice SLOs selected by the customer selecting
available Routing Policies and Forwarding policies for
accomplishing those SLOs.
* Realize: Create necessary network requests. The slice's
realization can be translated into one or several LXNM Network
requests, depending on the number of underlay controllers. Thus,
the NSC must have a complete view of the network to map the orders
and distribute them across domains. The realization should
include the expansion/selection of Forwarding Policies, Routing
Policies, VPN policies, and Underlay transport preference.
To maintain the data coherence between the control layers, the RFC
XXXX Network Slice ID ns-id used of the [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-
slice-nbi-yang] must be directly mapped to the transport-instance-id
at the VPN-Node level.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
+
|
| RFC XXXX Network Slice Request:
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang
| * network-slice-id
|
+-------------------v------------------+
| |
| Hierarchical Network |
| Controller/Orchestrator |
| |
| +-------------------------------+ |
| | RFC XXXX NSC | |
| +-------------------------------+ |
| |
+-------------------+------------------+
RFC XXXX Network Slice Realizer: LXNM
VPN-id |
* transport-instance-id |
|
+--------------+---------------+
| |
v v
+-------------+----------+ +-------------+----------+
| Network Controller | | Network Controller |
+-------------+----------+ +-------------+----------+
| |
| |
v v
Network Elements Network Elements
Figure 7 Workflow for the Slice Request in an Integrated
Architecture.
7.2. RFC XXXX Network Slice Service Requested to Network Slice
Controller
Referring to Figure 2 when the Network Slice Controller is a stand-
alone controller module, the NSC's should perform the same two tasks
described in section 6.1:
* Map: Process the customer request. The customer request can be
sent using [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]. The
customer can also perform the Network Slice request using
customized topologies.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
* Realize: Create necessary network requests. The slice's
realization will be translated into one LXNM Network request. As
the NCS has a topological view of the network, the realization can
include the customer's traffic engineering transport preferences
and policies.
+
|RFC XXXX Network Slice Request
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang
* network-id
|
+-------------v---------------------+
| RFC XXXX Network Slice Controller |
+-------------+---------------------+
|
RFC XXXX Network Slice Realizer: LxNM
VPN-id |
* Underlay-transport
* transport-instance-id
|
+-------------v----------------+
| Network Controller |
+-------------+----------------+
|
|
v
Network Elements
Figure 8 Workflow for the slice request in an stand-alone
architecture.
7.3. Network Slice Controller as Part of the Domain Controller
The Network Slice Controller can be a module of the network
controller. In that case, two options are available. One is to
share the same device data model in the customer-facing and network-
facing interfaces of the network controller. The direct translation
would reduce the service logic implemented at the network controller
level, grouping the mapping and translation into a single task:
* Realize: As the device models are part of the network controller's
customer-facing interface thus, the realization can be done by the
network controller applying a simple service logic to send the
Network elements.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
+
| Slice Request based on
| Device Models
|
|
+------------------v------------------+
| |
| Network |
| Controller |
| |
| +------------------------------+ |
| | Network Slice Controller | |
| +------------------------------+ |
| |
+------------------+------------------+
| Device Models
|
v
Network Elements
Figure 9 Workflow for the slice request in an stand-alone
architecture.
A second option introduces a more complex logic in the network
controller and creates an abstraction layer to process the transport
slices. In that case, the controller should receive Network Slices
creation requests and maintain the whole set of implemented slices:
* Map & Realize: The mapping and realization can be done by the
Domain controller applying the service logic to create policies
directly on the Network elements.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
+
|Slice Request
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang
* network-id
|
|
+------------------v------------------+
| |
| Network |
| Controller |
| |
| +------------------------------+ |
| | Network Slice Controller | |
| +------------------------------+ |
| |
+------------------+------------------+
|
|
v
Network Elements
Figure 10 Workflow for the slice request in an stand-alone
architecture.
8. Security Considerations
There are two main aspects to consider. On the one hand, the RFC
XXXX Network Slice has a set of security related requirements, such
as hard isolation of the slice, or encryption of the communications
through the slice. All those requirements need to be analyzed in
detailed and clearly mapped to the Network Controller and device
interfaces.
On the other hand, the communication between the RFC XXXX Network
Slice Controller and the network controller (or controllers or
hierarchy of controllers) need to follow the same security
considerations as with the network models.
The network YANG modules define schemas for data that is designed to
be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF
[RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].
The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the
mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH)
[RFC6242].
The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement
secure transport is TLS [RFC8466].
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
The following summarizes the foreseen risks of using the Network
Models to instantiate RFC XXXX network Slices:
* Malicious clients attempting to delete or modify VPN services that
implements an RFC XXXX Network Slice. The malicious client could
manipulate security related aspects of the network configuration
that impact the requirements of the slice, failing to satisfy the
customer requirement.
* Unauthorized clients attempting to create/modify/delete a VPN hat
implements an RFC XXXX Network Slice service.
* Unauthorized clients attempting to read VPN services related
information hat implements an RFC XXXX Network Slice
* Malicious clients attempting to leak traffic of the slice.
9. IANA Considerations
This document is informational and does not require IANA allocations.
10. Conclusions
A wide variety of YANG models are currently under definition in IETF
that can be used by Network Controllers to instantiate RFC XXXX
Network Slices. Some of the RFC XXXX Network Slice requirements can
be satisfied by multiple means, as there are multiple choices
available. However, other requirements are still not covered by the
existing models. A more detailed definition of those uncovered
requirements would be needed. Finally a consensus on the set of
models to be exposed by Network Controllers would facilitate the
deployment of RFC XXXX Network Slices.
Contributors
Many thanks to Daniel King for their perspectives on the Series and
their ongoing support.
References
Normative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]
Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rokui, R., Homma, S., Makhijani,
K., Contreras, L. M., and J. Tantsura, "A Framework for
Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF Technologies",
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
network-slices-25, 14 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
ietf-network-slices-25>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
"YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8299>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8466] Wen, B., Fioccola, G., Ed., Xie, C., and L. Jalil, "A YANG
Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
Service Delivery", RFC 8466, DOI 10.17487/RFC8466, October
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and
L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network
Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8969>.
[RFC9181] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,
Ed., and Q. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for Layer 2 and
Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9181, DOI 10.17487/RFC9181, February
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9181>.
[RFC9182] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,
Ed., Munoz, L., and A. Aguado, "A YANG Network Data Model
for Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9182, DOI 10.17487/RFC9182,
February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9182>.
[RFC9291] Boucadair, M., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Barguil,
S., and L. Munoz, "A YANG Network Data Model for Layer 2
VPNs", RFC 9291, DOI 10.17487/RFC9291, September 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9291>.
[RFC9408] Boucadair, M., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Barguil, S., Wu,
Q., and V. Lopez, "A YANG Network Data Model for Service
Attachment Points (SAPs)", RFC 9408, DOI 10.17487/RFC9408,
June 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9408>.
Informative References
[I-D.contreras-teas-slice-controller-models]
Contreras, L. M., Rokui, R., Tantsura, J., Wu, B., Liu,
X., Dhody, D., and S. Belotti, "IETF Network Slice
Controller and its associated data models", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-contreras-teas-slice-
controller-models-05, 13 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-contreras-
teas-slice-controller-models-05>.
[I-D.dhody-teas-ietf-network-slice-mapping]
Dhody, D. and B. Wu, "IETF Network Slice Service Mapping
YANG Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
dhody-teas-ietf-network-slice-mapping-04, 12 September
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dhody-
teas-ietf-network-slice-mapping-04>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit]
Boucadair, M., Roberts, R., Dios, O. G. D., Giraldo, S.
B., and B. Wu, "A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment
Circuits", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-05, 9 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit/>.
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit]
Boucadair, M., Roberts, R., de Dios, O. G., Barguil, S.,
and B. Wu, "YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment
Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-
05, 22 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-
teas-attachment-circuit-05>.
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac]
Boucadair, M., Roberts, R., de Dios, O. G., Barguil, S.,
and B. Wu, "A Common YANG Data Model for Attachment
Circuits", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
opsawg-teas-common-ac-04, 22 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-
teas-common-ac-04>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]
Wu, B., Dhody, D., Rokui, R., Saad, T., and J. Mullooly,
"A YANG Data Model for the IETF Network Slice Service",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
network-slice-nbi-yang-08, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-08>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-use-cases]
Contreras, L. M., Homma, S., Ordonez-Lucena, J. A.,
Tantsura, J., and H. Nishihara, "IETF Network Slice Use
Cases and Attributes for the Slice Service Interface of
IETF Network Slice Controllers", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-use-
cases-01, 24 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
ietf-network-slice-use-cases-01>.
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
[I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang]
Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Fioccola, G., Wu, Q., Ceccarelli, D.,
and J. Tantsura, "Traffic Engineering (TE) and Service
Mapping YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-14, 12
September 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-14>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te]
Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V. P., and I.
Bryskin, "A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering
Tunnels, Label Switched Paths and Interfaces", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-36, 2
February 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-36>.
[RFC8309] Wu, Q., Liu, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models
Explained", RFC 8309, DOI 10.17487/RFC8309, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8309>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Samier Barguil (editor)
Nokia
Calle de María Tubau, 9
28050 Madrid
Spain
Email: samier.barguil_giraldo@nokia.com
Luis Miguel Contreras (editor)
Telefonica
Distrito T
28050 Madrid
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Victor Lopez
Nokia
Calle de María Tubau, 9
28050 Madrid
Spain
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Network Models for IETF Network Slices February 2024
Email: victor.lopez@nokia.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica
Distrito T
28050 Madrid
Spain
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reza Rokui
Ciena
Email: reza.rokui@nokia.com
Barguil, et al. Expires 12 August 2024 [Page 31]