A Realization of IETF Network Slices for 5G Networks Using Current IP/MPLS Technologies
draft-srld-teas-5g-slicing-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Krzysztof Grzegorz Szarkowicz , Richard Roberts , Julian Lucek , John Drake , Mohamed Boucadair , Luis M. Contreras , Ivan Bykov , Reza Rokui , Luay Jalil , Beny Dwi Setyawan , Amit Dhamija , Mojdeh Amani | ||
| Last updated | 2023-01-13 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls, draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls, draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls | ||
| RFC stream | (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-srld-teas-5g-slicing-04
Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling K. Szarkowicz, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Roberts, Ed.
Intended status: Informational J. Lucek
Expires: 17 July 2023 J. Drake
Juniper Networks
M. Boucadair, Ed.
Orange
L. M. Contreras
Telefonica
I. Bykov
Ribbon Communications
R. Rokui
Ciena
L. Jalil
Verizon
B. D. Setyawan
XL Axiata
A. Dhamija
Rakuten
M. Amani
British Telecom
13 January 2023
A Realization of IETF Network Slices for 5G Networks Using Current IP/
MPLS Technologies
draft-srld-teas-5g-slicing-04
Abstract
5G slicing is a feature that was introduced by the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) in mobile networks. This feature covers
slicing requirements for all mobile domains, including the Radio
Access Network (RAN), Core Network (CN), and Transport Network (TN).
This document describes a basic IETF Network Slice realization model
in IP/MPLS networks with a focus on the Transport Network fulfilling
5G slicing connectivity requirements. This realization model reuses
many building blocks currently commonly used in service provider
networks.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
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 17 July 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. 5G Network Slicing Integration in Transport Networks . . . . 4
3.1. 5G Network Slicing versus Transport Network Slicing . . . 4
3.2. NF to NF Datapath vs Transport Network . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Segmentation of NF-to-NF Datapath . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Orchestration of Local Segment Termination at ETN . . 10
3.3. 5G Slice to IETF Network Slice Mapping . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. First 5G Slice versus Subsequent Slices . . . . . . . . . 13
4. High-Level Overview of the Realization Model . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. VLAN Hand-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. IP Hand-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. MPLS Label Hand-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.1. Option 10A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.2. Option 10B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.3. Option 10C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. QoS Mapping Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1. 5QI-unaware Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1.1. Inbound Edge Resource Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1.2. Outbound Edge Resource Control . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
5.2. 5QI-aware Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2.1. Inbound Edge Resource Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.2. Outbound Edge Resource Control . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.3. Transit Resource Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6. Transport Planes Mapping Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.1. 5QI-unaware Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.2. 5QI-aware Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7. Capacity Planning/Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.1. Bandwidth Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.1.1. Scheme 1: Shortest Path Forwarding (SPF) . . . . . . 44
7.1.2. Scheme 2: TE LSPs with Fixed Bandwidth
Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.1.3. Scheme 3: TE LSPs without Bandwidth Reservation . . . 46
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix B. An Overview of 5G Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
B.1. Key Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
B.2. Core Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
B.3. Radio Access Network (RAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.4. Transport Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices] introduces the framework for
network slicing in the context of networks built using IETF
technologies. The IETF network slicing framework introduces the
concept of a Network Resource Partition (NRP), which is simply a
collection of resources identified in the underlay network. There
could be multiple realizations of high-level IETF Network Slice and
NRP concepts, where each realization might be optimized for the
different network slicing use cases that are listed in
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
This document describes a basic - using only single NRP - IETF
Network Slice realization model in IP/MPLS networks, with a focus on
fulfilling 5G slicing connectivity requirements. This IETF Network
Slice realization model reuses many building blocks currently
commonly used in communication service provider networks.
The reader may refer to [I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls] for more advanced
realization models.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
A brief 5G overview is provided in Appendix B for readers
convenience. The reader may refer to [RFC6459] and [TS-23.501] for
more details about 3GPP network architectures.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
The document uses the terms defined in
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
This document makes use of the following terms:
Service Management and Orchestration (SMO):
O-RAN management/orchestration entity
Edge Transport Node (ETN):
Node, under the transport domain orchestration, that stitches the
transport domain to adjacent domains. An ETN can be be a Provider
Edge (PE) or a managed Customer Equipment (CE).
An extended list of abbreviations used in this document are listed in
Appendix A.
3. 5G Network Slicing Integration in Transport Networks
3.1. 5G Network Slicing versus Transport Network Slicing
Network slicing has a different meaning in the 3GPP mobile and
transport worlds. Hence, for the sake of precision and whithout
seeking to be exhaustive, this section provides a brief description
of the objectives of 5G Network Slicing and Transport Network
Slicing:
* An objective of 5G Network Slicing is to provide dedicated
resources of the whole 5G infrastructure to some users/customers,
applications, or Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMNs) (e.g., RAN
sharing). These resources are from the Transport Network (TN),
RAN, and Core Network Functions and the underlying infrastructure.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
[TS-28.530] defines 5G Network Slicing by introducing the concept
of Network Slice Subnet (NSS) to represent slices within each of
these domains: RAN, CN, and TN (i.e., RAN NSS, CN NSS and TN NSS).
As per 3GPP specifications, an NSS can be shared or dedicated to a
single slice.
* An objective of TN Slicing is to isolate, guarantee, and
prioritize Transport Network resources for slices. Examples of
such resources are: buffers, link capacity, or even Routing
Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base (FIB).
TN Slicing has two main flavors: Hard and Soft slicing. Hard
slicing provides dedicated network capacity to slices, while soft
slicing provides shared network capacity with guarantees for each
slice.
There are different options to implement TN slices based upon
tools, such as VRFs (Virtual Routing and Forwarding instances) for
logical separation, QoS (Quality of Service), or TE (Traffic
Engineering).
TN slice realization for 5G slices may combine elements of hard
slicing in one part of the transport network, with elements of
soft slicing in other parts of the transport network. Such as
design is deployment-specific.
An optimized 5G network slicing architecture should integrate TN
Slicing, however, it is possible to implement 5G Network Slicing
without TN Slicing, as explained in the next section.
TN Slicing is implemented using IETF technologies, therefore,
inline with [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
In this document, the term "IETF Network Slice" (IETF NS, or INS
in short) is used to describe the slice in the Transport Network
domain of the overall 5G architecture, composed from RAN, TN, and
CN domains.
3.2. NF to NF Datapath vs Transport Network
The 3GPP specifications loosely define the Transport Network and its
integration in RAN and CN domains: the role of the Transport Network
is to interconnect Network Functions (NFs). In other words, it is
the end-to-end datapath between two NFs. In practice, this end-to-
end datapath results often from a non-uniform architecture made up of
several segments managed by the same or distinct organizations.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
This document defines the Transport Network with a service provider
scope. That is, the TN extends up to the PE or the CE if it is also
managed by the TN Orchestration. Additionally, we assume that the
Transport Network is IP, MPLS, or SRv6 capable.
3.2.1. Segmentation of NF-to-NF Datapath
The datapath between two NFs may be decomposed into two segments
based upon involved Orchestration domains:
* TN Segment:
The realization of this segment is driven by the IETF Network
Slice Controller (NSC) and the Transport Network Orchestrator
(TNO). Generally, a TN Segment provides connectivity between two
sites.
* Local Segment:
This segment connects NFs within a given site or connects an NF to
a TN. The realization of this segment is directly or indirectly
driven by the 5G Orchestration without any involvement of the TNO.
Generally, the Local Segment is a datapath local to a site. This
site can be (but not limited to): a Data Center (DC), a Point of
Presence (PoP), a Central Office (CO), or a virtualized
infrastructure in a Public Cloud.
Note that more complex scenarios may be considered (for example,
adding an extra segmentation of TN or Local Segments). Additionally,
sites can be of different types (such as Edge, Data Center, or Public
Cloud), each with specific network design, hardware dependencies,
management interface, and diverse networking technologies (e.g.,
MPLS, SRv6, VXLAN, or L2VPN vs. L3VPN). The objective of this
section is to clarify the scope of the Transport Network rather than
to cover random technology or design combination.
The realization of IETF Network Slices (i.e., connectivity with
performance commitments) applies to the TN Segments. We consider
Local Segments as an extension of the connectivity of the RAN/CN
domain without slice-specific performances requirements by assuming
that the local infrastructure is overprovisioned and implements
traditional QoS/Scheduling logic.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Also, since the TN domain can extend either to the CE or to the PE,
we introduce the term Edge Transport Node (ETN) to denote this
boundary. The ETN is, therefore, a Transport node that stitches
Local Segments and TN Segments. Note that depending on the design,
the placement of the Service Demarcation Point (SDP)
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices] may or may not be enforced on the
ETN itself.
Figure 1 is a representation of the end-to-end datapath between NFs
including Segments and ETNs (in practice PE or a managed CE), where
applicable.
SMO/Site TN SMO/Site
Orchestration Orchestration Orchestration
│ │ │
│ │ │
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ┐ ┌ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ┐ ┌ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
│ │ │
│ ┌──┐ ▼ │ ┌─┴─┐ ▼ ┌─┴─┐ │ ▼ ┌──┐ │
│NF├─────────┤ETN├─────────┤ETN├─────────┤NF│
│ └──┘ │ └─┬─┘Transport└─┬─┘ │ └──┘ │
5G Site 1 Network 5G Site 2
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
└─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘
Local TN Local
Segment Segment Segment
■─────────────■
IETF Network Slice
◀─────────────────────────────────────▶
End-to-end datapath between NFs
Figure 1: Segmentation of the NF-NF Datapath
NFs may also be placed in the same site and interconnected via a
Local Segment. In such a case, there is no TN Segment (i.e., no
Transport Network Node is present in the datapath).
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
SMO / Site
Orchestration
│
│
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
│
│ ┌──┐ ▼ ┌──┐ │
│NF├─────────────────────────────────────┤NF│
│ └──┘ └──┘ │
5G Site
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
Local Segment
◀─────────────────────────────────────▶
End-to-end datapath between NFs
Figure 2: NF-NF Datapath within Single Site
Figure 3 provides samples to illustrate the different realizations of
Local and TN Segments, as well the SDPs:
* Layer 2 vs. Layer 3 Local Segment: The Local Segment can
interconnect the NF and the ETN thanks to a unique VLAN/LAN with
no intermediate routing hop (the simplest example is an NF
directly connected to a PE): A1, A2, A3, and A4. Alternatively,
the NF interfaces may be attached in a different VLAN/LAN than the
ETN interface assuming some additional local routing capabilities
between the ETN and the NF (e.g., CE, IP Fabric): B1, B2, B3, and
B4.
* ETN: The ETN can be either the PE (A3, A4, B3, and B4) or the CE
if it is managed by the TN Orchestration (A1, A2, B1, and B2).
* SDP: The SDP can be located in many places as per Sectionb 4.2 of
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]: A1/B1 for case (1), A2/B2 for
case (2), A3/B3 for case (3), and A4/B4 for case (4))
* Redundancy/Scale-out: No example of redundancy/multihoming/scale-
out is provided for the sake of simplicification. Nonetheless,
each node/NF can be represented by multiple instances (e.g.,
multiple containers in a cloud architecture).
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Local segment Transport Network
◀───────────────────────────▶◀─────────────────── ─ ─ ─ ─
┌─────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────── ─ ─ ─ ┐
│ Site Type A1 │ │
│ ┌────┐ │ ┌─■──┐ ┌────┐ . │
│ │ NF ├───────────────────┤ CE ├────┤ PE ├─────╱ ╲
│ └────┘ │ └─┬──┘ └────┘ ; : │
└─────────────────────┘ │ ; :
┌─────────────────────┐ │ ; : │
│ Site Type A2 │ │ │ │
│ ┌────┐ │ ┌────┤ ┌────┐ │ │ │
│ │ NF ├────────────────┤ CE ■───────┤ PE ├───│ │
│ └────┘ │ └────┤ └────┘ ; : │
└─────────────────────┘ │ ; ┌───┐ :
┌─────────────────────┐ │ │ │ P │ │ │
│ Site Type A3 │ │ │ └───┘ │
│ ┌────┐ │ ├────┐ │ │ │
│ │ NF ├─────────────────────■ PE ├──────────│ │
│ └────┘ │ ├────┘ │ │ │
└─────────────────────┘ │ │ │
┌─────────────────────┐ │ │ │ │
│ Site Type A4 │ │ ; :
│ ┌────┐ │ ┌─■──┐ ; : │
│ │ NF ├───────────────────┤ PE ├───────────│ ┌───┐ │
│ └────┘ │ └─┬──┘ │ │ P │ │ │
└─────────────────────┘ │ │ └───┘ │
┌─────────────────────┐ │ │ │ │
│ Site Type B1.───. │ │ │ │
│ ,' `. │ │ │ │ │
│ ; Local :│ │ │ │
│ ┌────┐ │ Routing ││ ┌─■──┐ ┌────┐ │ │ │
│ │ NF ├───┤ managed ├─────┤ CE ├────┤ PE ├─┤ │
│ └────┘ : by SMO ;│ └─┬──┘ └────┘ │ │ │
│ ╲ ╱ │ │ │ │
│ `. ,' │ │ │ ┌───┐ │ │
│ `─' │ │ │ │ P │ │
└─────────────────────┘ │ │ └───┘ │ │
┌─────────────────────┐ │ │ │
│ Site Type B2.───. │ │ │ │ │
│ ,' `. │ │ │ │
│ ; Local :│ │ │ │ │
│ ┌────┐ │ Routing ││ ┌────┤ ┌────┐ │ │
│ │ NF ├───┤ managed ├──┤ CE ■───────┤ PE ├─┤ │ │
│ └────┘ : by SMO ;│ └────┤ └────┘ │ │
│ ╲ ╱ │ │ │ │ │
│ `. ,' │ │ │ ┌───┐ │
│ `─' │ │ │ │ P │ │ │
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
└─────────────────────┘ │ │ └───┘ │
┌─────────────────────┐ │ │ │ │
│ Site Type B3.───. │ │ : ;
│ ,' `. │ │ : ; │
│ ; Local :│ │ │ │
│ ┌────┐ │ Routing ││ ├────┐ │ │ │
│ │ NF ├───┤ managed ├───────■ PE ├──────────│ │
│ └────┘ : by SMO ;│ ├────┘ │ │ │
│ ╲ ╱ │ │ │ │
│ `. ,' │ │ │ ┌───┐ │ │
│ `─' │ │ │ │ P │ │
└─────────────────────┘ │ : └───┘ ; │
┌─────────────────────┐ │ : ;
│ Site Type B4.───. │ │ │ │ │
│ ,' `. │ │ │ │
│ ; Local :│ │ │ │ │
│ ┌────┐ │ Routing ││ ┌─■──┐ : ;
│ │ NF │───┤ managed ├─────┤ PE ├──────────────: ; │
│ └────┘ : by SMO ;│ └─┬──┘ │ │
│ ╲ ╱ │ │ : ; │
│ `. ,' │ │ ╲ ╱
│ `─' │ │ ' │
└─────────────────────┘ └──────────────────── ─ ─ ─
├───────────────┤
ETN
■ Service Demarcation Point
Figure 3: Examples of various combinations of Local Segments,
ETN, and SDP
3.2.2. Orchestration of Local Segment Termination at ETN
The interconnection between a 5G site and the Transport Network is
made up of shared networking resources. More precisely, the Local
Segment terminates to an interface of the ETN, which must be
configured with consistent dataplane network information (e.g., VLAN-
ID and IP addresses/subnets). Hence, the realization of this
interconnection requires a coordination between the Service
Management and Orchestration (SMO) and the Transport Orchestration
(IETF NSC). In this document, and aligned with [RFC8969], we assume
that this coordination is based upon IETF YANG data models and APIs
(more details in further sections).
Figure 4 is a basic example of a Layer 3 CE-PE link realization with
shared network resources, such as VLAN-ID and IP prefixes, which must
be passed between Orchestrators via the Network Slice Service
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Interface ([I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]) or a
Attachement Circuit Service Interface
([I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit]).
Datapath network resources (e.g., VLAN ID, IP
prefixes) exchanged via SMO-NSC interface (NSI)
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
TN
│ │ │Orchestration│
SMO / Site IETF APIs/DM
│Orchestration│ ◀────────────▶ │ IETF NSC │
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ │
│ │
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ┐ ┌ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
▼ ▼
│ ┌──┐ ┌──┐.1│ 192.0.2.0/31 │.0┌──┐ │
│NF├──────┤CE├──────────────────────────┤PE│
│ └──┘ └──┘ │ VLAN 100 │ └──┘ │
Site
│ │ │ TN │
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
└────────────────────────────────────┘
Local Segment
Figure 4: An Example of Data Exchange
Note that the allocation of these resources (e.g., VLAN-ID or IP
resources) can be either managed by the SMO or the Transport Network.
In other words, the initial SMO request for the creation of a new
IETF Network Slice on a given 5G site may or may not include all
network resources. In the latter case, this information is exchanged
in a second step.
3.3. 5G Slice to IETF Network Slice Mapping
There are multiple options to map a 5G network slice to IETF Network
Slices:
* 1 to N: A single 5G Network Slice can map to multiple IETF Network
Slices (1 to N). One example of such a case is the separation of
the 5G Control Plane and User Plane: this use case is represented
in Figure 5 where a slice (EMBB) is deployed with a separation of
User Plane and Control Plane at the TN.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
* N to 1: Multiple 5G Network Slices may rely upon the same IETF
Network Slice (i.e., in [TS-28.530] semantic, two RAN/CN NSSes
uses a shared TN NSS). In such a case, the Service Level
Agreement (SLA) differentiation of slices would be entirely
controlled at 5G Control Plane, for example, with appropriate
placement strategies: this use case is represented in Figure 6,
where a User Plane Function (UPF) for the URLLC slice is
instantiated at the edge cloud close to the gNB CU-UP User Plane
for better latency/jitter control, while the 5G Control Plane and
the UPF for EMBB slice are instantiated in the regional cloud.
* N to M: The 5G to IETF Network Slice mapping combines both
approaches with a mix of shared and dedicated associations.
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
│ 5G Slice eMBB │
│ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ │
┌─────┐ N3 ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ N3 ┌─────┐
│ │CU-UP├─────── IETF Network Slice UP_eMBB ───────┤ UPF │ │
└─────┘ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘ └─────┘
│ │ │ │
┌─────┐ N2 ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ N2 ┌─────┐
│ │CU-CP├─────── IETF Network Slice CP ───────┤ AMF │ │
└─────┘ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘ └─────┘
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
│ │
Transport Network
│ │
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
Figure 5: 1 (5G Slice) to N (IETF Network Slice) Mapping
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
Edge Cloud
│ │
┌─────────┐
│ │UPF_URLLC│ │
└─────┬───┘
└ ─ ─ ─ │ ─ ─ ┘
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ ┌ ─ ─ ─ │ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
┌ ─ ─ ┴ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ │ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ Cell Site │ │ │ │
│ │ │ Regional
│ ┌───────────┐ │ │ │ Cloud │
│CU-UP_URLLC├─────┤ │ │ ┌──────────┐
│ └───────────┘ │ │ IETF Network ├─────┤ 5GC CP │ │
│ Slice ALL │ │ └──────────┘
│ ┌───────────┐ │ │ │ │
│CU-UP_eMBB ├─────┤ │ │ ┌──────────┐
│ └───────────┘ │ │ ├─────┤ UPF_eMBB │ │
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ │ │ │ └──────────┘
│ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘ │
│ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ Transport Network
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
Figure 6: N (5G Slice) to 1 (IETF Network Slice) Mapping
Note that the actual realization of the mapping depends on several
factors, such as the actual business cases, the NF vendor
capabilities, the NF vendor reference designs, as well as service
provider or even legal requirements.
Specifically, the actual mapping is a design choice of service
operators that may a function of, e.g., the number of instantiated
slices, requested services, or local engineering capabilities and
guidelines. However, operators should carefully consider means to
ease slice migration strategies (e.g., move from 1-to-1 mapping to N-
to-1).
3.4. First 5G Slice versus Subsequent Slices
A 5G Network Slice is fully functional with both 5G Control Plane and
User Plane capabilities (i.e., dedicated NF functions or contexts).
In this regard, the creation of the "first slice" is subject to a
specific logic since it must deploy both CP and UP. This is not the
case for the deployment of subsequent slices because they can share
the same CP of the first slice, while instantiating dedicated UP. An
example of an incremental deployment is depicted in Figure 7.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
At the time of writing, Section 6.2 of [NG.113] specifies that the
eMBB slice (SST=1 and no SD) should be supported globally. This 5G
slice would be the first slice in any 5G deployment.
Note that the actual realization of the mapping depends on several
factors such as the actual business cases, the NF vendor
capabilities, the NF vendor reference designs, as well as service
providers or even legal requirements.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ 1 ┌─────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐ │ ┌─────┐ │
s S │NF-CP├──────┤ CP IETF NS (IETF-NS-1) ├──────┤NF-CP│
│ t l └─────┘ └──────────────────────────┘ │ └─────┘ │
i │
│ 5 c ┌─────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐ │ ┌─────┐ │
G e │NF-UP├──────┤ UP IETF NS (IETF-NS-2) ├──────┤NF-UP│
│ └─────┘ └──────────────────────────┘ │ └─────┘ │
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│
│ Transport Network
│
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
Deployment of first 5G slice
│ │
│ │
│ │
─┘ └─
╲ ╱
╲ ╱
V
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ 1 ┌─────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐ │ ┌─────┐ │
s S │NF-CP├──────┤ CP IETF NS (IETF-NS-1) ├──────┤NF-CP│
│ t l └─────┘ └──────────────────────────┘ │ └─────┘ │
i │
│ 5 c ┌─────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐ │ ┌─────┐ │
G e │NF-UP├──────┤ UP IETF NS (IETF-NS-2) ├──────┤NF-UP│
│ └─────┘ └──────────────────────────┘ │ └─────┘ │
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
2 │
│ n S ┌──────┐ │ ┌──────────────────────────┐ ┌──────┐ │
d l │NF-UP2├─────┤ UP2 IETF NS (IETF-NS-3)├─────┤NF-UP2│
│ i └──────┘ │ └──────────────────────────┘ └──────┘ │
5 c │
│ G e │ │
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│
Transport Network │
│
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
Deployment of additional 5G slice with shared Control Plane
Figure 7: First and Subsequent Slice Deployment
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
4. High-Level Overview of the Realization Model
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices] introduces the concept of the
Network Resource Partition (NRP), which is defined as a collection of
resources identified in the underlay network. In the basic
realization model described in this document, a single NRP is used
with following characteristics:
* L2VPN/L3VPN service instances for logical separation:
This realization model of transport for 5G slices assumes Layer-3
delivery for midhaul and backhaul transport connections, and a
Layer 2 or Layer 3 (eCPRI supports both) delivery model for
fronthaul connections. L2VPN/L3VPN service instances might be
used as basic form of logical slice separation. Further, using
service instances results in additional outer header (as packets
are encapsulated/decapsulated at the nodes performing PE
functions) providing clean discrimantion between 5G QoS and TN
QoS, as explained in Section 4
* Fine-Grained resource control at the ETN:
This is sometimes called 'admission control' or 'traffic
conditioning'. The main purpose is the enforcement of the
bandwidth contract for the slice right at the edge of the
transport domain where the traffic is handed-off between the
transport domain and the 5G domains (i.e., RAN/Core).
The toolset used here is granular ingress policing (rate limiting)
to enforce contracted bandwidths per slice and, potentially, per
traffic class within the slice. Out-of-contract traffic might be
immediately dropped, or marked as high drop probability traffic,
which is more likely to be dropped somewhere at the transit if
congestion occurs. In the egress direction at the edge of the
transport domain, hierarchical schedulers/shapers can be deployed,
providing guaranteed rates per slice, as well as guarantees per
traffic class within the slice.
In the managed CE use cases (use cases A1, A2, B1, and B2 depicted
in Figure 7) edge admission control could be distributed between
CE and PE, where one part of the edge admission control is
implemented on CE, and another part of the edge admission control
is implemented on PE.
* Coarse resource control at the TN transit (non-attachment
circuits) links of the transport domain, using a single NRP,
spanning the entire TN domain Transit nodes do not maintain any
state of individual slices. Instead, only a flat (non-
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
hierarchical) QoS model is used on transit links with up to 8
traffic classes. At the transport domain edge, traffic-flows from
multiple slice services are mapped to the limited number of
traffic classes used on transit links.
* Capacity planning/management for efficient usage of TN edge and TN
transit resources:
The role of capacity management is to ensure the transport
capacity can be utilized without causing any bottlenecks. The
toolset used here can range from careful network planning, to
ensure more less equal traffic distribution (i.e., equal cost load
balancing), to advanced traffic engineering techniques, with or
without bandwidth reservations, to force more consistent load
distribution even in non-ECMP friendly network topologies.
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
┌──────────┐ base NRP ┌──────────┐
│ ETN │ │ ETN │
┌ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─
■◀───┐│ │ IETF Network Slice 1 │ │┌────▶■ │
│ │ │ │ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ │ │ │
■◀───┤│ │ │ P │ │ P │ │ │├────▶■ │
├ ┼ ─ ─├────▶□◀──────▶□◀───▶□◀──────▶□────▶□◀──────▶□◀───┤─ ─ ─│─
■◀───┤│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │├────▶■ │
│ │ │ │ └─────┘ └─────┘ │ │ │
■◀───┘│ │ IETF Network Slice 2 │ │└────▶■ │
└ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─
│ │ │ │ │ │
└──────────┘ └──────────┘
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
■ fine-grained QoS (dedicated resources per IETF NS)
□ coarse QoS, with resources shared by all IETF NS
Figure 8: Resource Allocation in with single NRP Slicing Model
The 5G control plane relies on S-NSSAI (Single Network Slice
Selection Assistance Information: 32-bit slice identifier) for slice
identification. The S-NSSAI is not visible to the transport domain,
so instead 5G functions can expose the 5G slices to the transport
domain by mapping to explicit L2/L3 identifiers such as VLAN, IP
addresses or DSCP, as documented in
[I-D.gcdrb-teas-5g-network-slice-application].
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
4.1. VLAN Hand-off
In this option, the IETF Network Slice, fulfilling connectivity
requirements between NFs of some 5G slice, is represented at the SDP
by a VLAN, or double VLANs (commonly known as QinQ). Each VLAN can
represent a distinct logical interface on the attachment circuits,
hence it provides the possibility to place these logical interfaces
in distinct L2 or L3 service instances and implement separation
between slices via service instances. Since the 5G interfaces are IP
based interfaces (the only exception could be the F2 fronthaul-
interface, where eCPRI with Ethernet encapsulation is used), this
VLAN is typically not transported across the TN domain. Typically,
it has only local significance at a particular SDP. For
simplification it is recommended to rely on a same VLAN identifier
for all ACs, when possible. However, SDPs for a same slice at
different locations may also use different VLAN values. Therefore, a
VLAN to IETF Network Slice mapping table MUST be maintained for each
AC, and the VLAN allocation MUST be coordinated between TN domain and
extended RAN/Core domains. Thus, while VLAN hand-off is simple from
the NF point of view, it adds complexity due to the requirement of
maintaining mapping tables for each SDP.
VLANs representing slices VLANs representing slices
│ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ │ │
│ │ │ │
┌──────┐ ▼ ┌─┴───┐ Transport┌─────┐ ▼ ┌─────┐ ▼ ┌──────┐
│ ●───────●■ │ │ ■●───────● ●───────● │
│ NF ●───────●■ ETN│ │ETN ■●───────●L2/L3●───────● NF │
│ ●───────●■ │ │ ■●───────● ●───────● │
└──────┘ └─┬───┘ Network └─────┘ └─────┘ └──────┘
│
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
● Logical interfaces represented by VLAN on a physical interface
■ SDPs
Figure 9: 5G Slice with VLAN Hand-off
4.2. IP Hand-off
In this option, the slices in the transport domain are instantiated
by IP tunnels (for example, IPsec, GTP-U tunnel) established between
NFs. The transport for a single 5G slice is constructed with
multiple such tunnels, since a typical 5G slice contains many NFs -
especially DUs and CUs. If a shared NF (i.e., an NF that serves
multiple slices, for example a shared DU) is deployed, multiple
tunnels from shared NF are established, each tunnel representing a
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
single slice. As opposed to the VLAN hand-off case, there is no
logical interface representing slice on the PE, hence all slices are
handled within single service instance. On the other hand, similarly
to the VLAN hand-off case, a mapping table tracking IP to IETF
Network Slice mapping is required.
Tunnels representing slices
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ │
│
┌──────┐ ┌──┴──┐ Transport┌───┴─┐ ┌─────┐ ▼ ┌──────┐
│ ○═════════■══════════════════════■═══════════════════════○ │
│ NF ├───────┤ ETN │ │ ETN ├───────┤L2/L3├───────┤ NF │
│ ○═════════■══════════════════════■═══════════════════════○ │
└──────┘ └──┬──┘ Network └───┬─┘ └─────┘ └──────┘
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
○ Tunnel (IPsec, GTP-U, ...) termination point
■ SDP
Figure 10: 5G Slice with IP Hand-off
The mapping table can be simplified if, e.g., IPv6 addressing is used
to address NFs. An IPv6 address is a 128-bit long field, while the
S-NSSAI is a 32-bit field: Slice/Service Type (SST): 8 bits, Slice
Differentiator (SD): 24 bits. 32 bits, out of 128 bits of the IPv6
address, MAY be used to encode the S-NSSAI, which makes an IP to
Slice mapping table unnecessary. This is simply an allocation method
to allocate IPv6 addresses to NF loopbacks, without redefining IPv6
semantic. Different IPv6 address allocation schemes following this
concept MAY be used, with one example allocation showed in Figure 11.
This addressing scheme is local to a node; intermediary nodes are not
required to associate any additional semantic with IPv6 address. One
benefit of embedding the S-NSSAI in the IPv6 address is that provides
a very easy way of identifying the packet as belonging to given
S-NSSAI at any place in the transport domain. This might could be
used, for example, to slectivelky enable per S-NSSAI monitoring, or
any other per S-NSSAI handling, if required.
NF specific reserved
(not slice specific) for S-NSSAI
◀───────────────────────────▶ ◀───────▶
┌────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┬────┐
│2001:0db8:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:ttdd:dddd│
└─────────┴─────────┴─────────┴─────────┘
tt - SST (8 bits)
dddddd - SD (24 bits)
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Figure 11: An Example of S-NSSAI embedded into IPv6
In the example, the most significant 96 bits of the IPv6 address are
unique to NF, but do not carry any slice specific information, while
the least significant 32 bits are used to embed S-NSSAI information.
The 96-bit part of the address could be further divided, based for
example on geographical location, or DC identification. 128 bits is
wide enough to design an IPv6 addressing scheme, which is most
suitable for particular 5G deployment.
Figure 12 shows an example slicing deployment, where S-NSSAI is
embedded into IPv6 addresses used by NFs. NF-A has a set of tunnel
termination points, with unique per slice IP addresses allocated from
the 2001:db8::a:0:0/96 subnet, while NF-B uses set of tunnel
termination points with per slice IP addresses allocated from
2001:db8::b:0:0/96. This example shows two slices: eMBB (SST=1) and
MIoT (SST=3). Therefore, for eMBB the tunnel IP addresses are auto-
derived (without the need for a mapping table) as {2001:db8::a:100:0,
2001:db8::b:100:0}, while for MIoT (SST=3) tunnel uses
{2001:db8::a:300:0, 2001:db8::b:300:0}.
2001:db8::a:0:0/96 (NF-A) 2001:db8::b:0:0/96 (NF-B)
2001:db8::a:100:0/128 ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 2001:db8::b:100:0/128
│ │ │
┌────▼─┐ eMBB (SST=1) │ Transport ┌─▼────┐
│ ○════════════════════════════════════════════════════════○ │
│ NF-A │ │ │ │ NF-B │
│ ○════════════════════════════════════════════════════════○ │
└────▲─┘ MIoT (SST=3) │ Network └─▲────┘
│ │ │
2001:db8::a:300:0/128 └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 2001:db8::b:300:0/128
Figure 12: Deployment example with S-NSSAI embedded into IPv6
4.3. MPLS Label Hand-off
In this option, the service instances representing different slices
are created directly on the NF, or within the cloud infrastructure
hosting the NF, and attached to the TN domain. Therefore, the packet
is MPLS encapsulated outside the TN domain with native MPLS
encapsulation, or MPLSoUDP encapsulation, depending on the capability
of the NF or cloud infrastructure, with the service label depicting
the slice.
There are three major methods (based upon Section 10 of [RFC4364])
for interconnecting multiple service domains:
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
* Option 10A (Section 4.3.1): VRF-to-VRF connections.
* Option 10B (Section 4.3.2): redistribution of labeled VPN routes
with next-hop change at domain boundaries.
* Option 10C (Section 4.3.3): redistribution of labeled VPN routes
without next-hop change + redistribution of labeled transport
routes with next-hop change at domain boundaries.
4.3.1. Option 10A
In this option, MPLS is not used in VRF-to-VRF hand-offs, since
services are terminated at the boundary of each domain, and VLAN
hand-off is in place between the domains. Thus, this option is the
same as VLAN hand-off, described in Section 4.1.
4.3.2. Option 10B
In this option, service instances for different IETF Network Slice
Services are instantiated outside the TN domain. These instances
could be instantiated either on the compute, hosting mobile network
functions (Figure 13, left hand side), or within the cloud
infrastructure itself (e.g., on the top of the rack or leaf switch
within cloud IP fabric (Figure 13, right hand side)). Between the TN
domain and the (extended) RAN/CN domain, packets are MPLS
encapsulated (or MPLSoUDP encapsulated, if cloud or compute
infrastructure doesn't support native MPLS encapsulation).
Therefore, the PE uses neither a VLAN nor an IP address for slice
identification at the SDP, but instead uses the MPLS label.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
◁────── ◁────── ◁──────
BGP VPN BGP VPN BGP VPN
COM=1, L=A" COM=1, L=A' COM=1, L=A
COM=2, L=B" COM=2, L=B' COM=2, L=B
COM=3, L=C" COM=3, L=C' COM=3, L=C
◁─────────────▷◁────────────▷◁─────────────▷
nhs nhs nhs nhs
VLANs
service instances service instances representing
representing slices representing slices slices
│ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ │ │
│ Transport │ │ │
┌────▼─┐ ┌┴────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─▼──────┐ ▼ ┌──────┐
│ ◙ │ │ │ │ │ │ ◙………………●───────● │
│ NF ◙ ├───────■ ETN │ │ ETN ■───────┤ ◙………………●───────● NF │
│ ◙ │ │ │ │ │ │ ◙………………●───────● │
└──────┘ └┬────┘ └─────┘ └────────┘ └──────┘
Network │ L2/L3
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
● Logical interface represented by VLAN on physical interface
◙ Service instances (with unique MPLS label)
■ Service Demarcation Point
Figure 13: MPLS Hand-off: Option B
MPLS labels are allocated dynamically, especially in Option 10B
deployments, where at the domain boundaries service prefixes are
reflected with next-hop self, and new label is dynamically allocated,
as visible in Figure 13. Therefore, for any slice-specific per hop
behavior at the TN domain edge, the PE must be able to determine
which label represents which slice. In the BGP control plane, when
exchanging service prefixes between (extended) RAN/CN domains and TN
domain, each slice might be represented by a unique BGP community, so
tracking label assignment to the slice is possible. For example, in
Figure 13, for the slice identified with COM=1, ETN advertises a
dynamically allocated label A". Since, based on the community, the
label to slice association is known, ETN can use this dynamically
allocated label A" to identify incoming packets as belonging to slice
1, and execute appropriate edge per hop behavior.
It is worth noting that slice identification in the BGP control plane
is at the prefix granularity. In extreme case, each prefix can have
different community representing a different slice. Depending on the
business requirements, each slice could be represented by a different
service instance, as outlined in Figure 13. In that case, the route
target extended community might be used as slice differentiator. In
another deployment, all prefixes (representing different slices)
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
might be handled by single 'mobile' service instance, and some other
BGP attribute (e.g., a standard community) might be used for slice
differentiation. Or there could be a deployment that groups multiple
slices together into a single service instance, resulting in a
handful of service instances. In any case, fine-grained per-hop
behavior at the edge of TN domain is possible.
4.3.3. Option 10C
*_for further study_*
5. QoS Mapping Models
The resources are managed via various QoS policies deployed in the
network. QoS mapping models to support 5G slicing connectivity
implemented over packet switched transport uses two layers of QoS:
(1) 5G QoS
At this layer QoS treatment is indicated by the 5QI (5G QoS
indicator), as defined in {{TS-23.501}}. A 5QI is an ID that is
used as a reference to 5G QoS characteristics (e.g., scheduling
weights, admission thresholds, queue management thresholds, link
layer protocol configuration, etc.) in the RAN domain. Given the
fact that 5QI applies to the RAN domain, it is not visible to the
TN domain. Therefore, if 5QI-aware treatment is desired in the TN
domain as well, 5G network functions might set DSCP with a value
representing 5QI, to allow differentiated treatment in TN domain
as well. Based on these DSCP values, at SDP of each TN segment
used to construct transport for given 5G slice, very granular QoS
enforcement might be implemented. The mapping between 5QI and
DSCP is out of scope for this document. Mapping recommendations
are documented in {{I-D.henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci}}. Each slice
might have flows with multiple 5QIs, thus there could be many
different 5QIs being deployed. 5QIs (or, more precisely,
corresponding DSCP values) are visible to the TN domain at SDP
(i.e., at the edge of the TN domain).
In this document, this layer of QoS will be referred as '5G QoS
Class' ('5G QoS' in short), or '5G DSCP'.
(2) TN QoS
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Control of the TN resources on transit links, as well as traffic
scheduling/prioritization on transit links, is based on a flat
(non-hierarchical) QoS model in the IETF Network Slice
realization. That is, IETF Network Slices are assigned dedicated
resources (e.g., QoS queues) at the edge of the TN domain (at
SDP), while all IETF Network Slices are sharing resources (sharing
QoS queues) on the transit links of the TN domain. Typical router
hardware can support up to 8 traffic queues per port, therefore
the architecture assumes 8 traffic queues per port support in
general.
At this layer, QoS treatment is indicated by QoS indicator
specific to the encapsulation used in the TN domain, and it could
be DSCP or MPLS TC. This layer of QoS will be referred as 'TN QoS
Class', or 'TN QoS' for short, in this document.
While 5QI might be exposed to the TN domain, via the DSCP value
(corresponding to specific 5QI value) set in the IP packet generated
by NFs, some 5G deployments might use 5QI in the RAN domain only,
without requesting per 5QI differentiated treatment from the TN
domain. This can be due to an NF limitation (no capability to set
DSCP), or it might simply depend on the overall slicing deployment
model. The O-RAN Alliance, for example, defines a phased approach to
the slicing, with initial phases utilizing only per slice, but not
per 5QI, differentiated treatment in the TN domain (Annex F of
[O-RAN.WG9.XPSAAS]).
Therefore, from QoS perspective, the 5G slicing connectivity
realization architecture defines two high-level realization models
for slicing in the transport domain: a 5QI-unaware model and a 5QI-
aware model. Both slicing models in the transport domain could be
used concurrently within the same 5G slice. For example, the TN
segment for 5G midhaul (F2-U interface) might be 5QI-unaware, while
at the same time the TN segment for 5G backhaul (N3 interface) might
follow the 5QI-aware model.
5.1. 5QI-unaware Mode
In 5QI-unaware mode, the DSCP values in the packets received from NF
at SDP are ignored. In the TN domain, there is no QoS
differentiation at the 5G QoS Class level. The entire IETF Network
Slice is mapped to single TN QoS Class, and, therefore, to a single
QoS queue on the routers in the TN domain. With a small number of
deployed 5G slices (for example only two 5G slices: eMBB and MIoT),
it is possible to dedicate a separate QoS queue for each slice on
transit routers. However, with introduction of private/enterprises
slices, as the number of 5G slices (and thus corresponding IETF
Network Slices) increases, a single QoS queue on transit links serves
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
multiple slices with similar characteristics. QoS enforcement on
transit links is fully coarse (single NRP, sharing resources among
all IETF Network Slices), as displayed in Figure 14.
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓ ETN │
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃
┃ SDP ┃ ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┫
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ ┃ Transit link ┃
┃ │IETF NS 1 ├────────────┐ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ ├─────▶ TN QoS Class 1 │ ┃
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃ SDP ┃ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 2 │ ┃
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃ │IETF NS 2 ├────────┐ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 3 │ ┃
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃ SDP ┃ └─────────▶ TN QoS Class 4 │ ┃
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃ │IETF NS 3 ├────────────┘ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ ┌─────────▶ TN QoS Class 5 │ ┃
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃ SDP ┃ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 6 │ ┃
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃ │IETF NS 4 ├────────┤ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 7 │ ┃
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃ SDP ┃ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 8 │ ┃
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃ │IETF NS 5 ├────────┘ ┃ Max 8 TN Classes ┃
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ ┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │
┣━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
Fine-grained QoS enforcement Coarse QoS enforcement
(dedicated resources per (resources shared by
IETF Network Slice) multiple IETF NSs)
Figure 14: Slice to TN QoS Mapping (5QI-unaware Model)
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
When the IP traffic is handed over at the SDP from the extended RAN
or extended Core domains to the TN domain, the PE encapsulates the
traffic into MPLS (if MPLS transport is used in the TN domain), or
IPv6 - optionally with some additional headers (if SRv6 transport is
used in the TN domain), and sends out the packets on the TN transit
link.
The original IP header retains the DCSP marking (which is ignored in
5QI-unaware mode), while the new header (MPLS or IPv6) carries QoS
marking (MPLS Traffic Class bits for MPLS encapsulation, or DSCP for
SRv6/IPv6 encapsulation) related to TN CoS. Based on TN QoS Class
marking, per hop behavior for all IETF Network Slices is executed on
TN links. TN domain transit routers do not evaluate the original IP
header for QoS-related decisions. This model is outlined in
Figure 15 for MPLS encapsulation, and in Figure 16 for SRv6
encapsulation.
┌──────────────┐
│ MPLS Header │
├─────┬─────┐ │
│Label│TN TC│ │
┌──────────────┐ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ├─────┴─────┴──┤
│ IP Header │ │╲ │ IP Header │
│ ┌───────┤ │ ╲ │ ┌───────┤
│ │5G DSCP│ ────────┘ ╲ │ │5G DSCP│
├──────┴───────┤ ╲ ├──────┴───────┤
│ │ ╲ │ │
│ │ ╲ │ │
│ │ ▏│ │
│ Payload │ ╱ │ Payload │
│(GTP-U/IPsec) │ ╱ │(GTP-U/IPsec) │
│ │ ╱ │ │
│ │ ────────┐ ╱ │ │
│ │ │ ╱ │ │
│ │ │╱ │ │
└──────────────┘ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ └──────────────┘
Figure 15: QoS with MPLS Encapsulation
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌──────────────┐
│ IPv6 Header │
│ ┌───────┤
│ │TN DSCP│
├──────┴───────┤
optional
│ IPv6 │
headers
┌──────────────┐ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ├──────────────┤
│ IP Header │ │╲ │ IP Header │
│ ┌───────┤ │ ╲ │ ┌───────┤
│ │5G DSCP│ ────────┘ ╲ │ │5G DSCP│
├──────┴───────┤ ╲ ├──────┴───────┤
│ │ ╲ │ │
│ │ ╲ │ │
│ │ ▏│ │
│ Payload │ ╱ │ Payload │
│(GTP-U/IPsec) │ ╱ │(GTP-U/IPsec) │
│ │ ╱ │ │
│ │ ────────┐ ╱ │ │
│ │ │ ╱ │ │
│ │ │╱ │ │
└──────────────┘ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ └──────────────┘
Figure 16: QoS with IPv6 Encapsulation
From the QoS perspective, both options are similar. However, there
is one difference between the two options. The MPLS TC is only 3
bits (8 possible combinations), while DSCP is 6 bits (64 possible
combinations). Hence, SRv6 [RFC8754] provides more flexibility for
TN CoS design, especially in combination with soft policing with in-
profile/ out-profile, as discussed in Section 5.1.1.
Edge resources are controlled in a very granular, fine-grained
manner, with dedicated resource allocation for each IETF Network
Slice. The resource control/enforcement happens at each SDP in two
directions: inbound and outbound.
5.1.1. Inbound Edge Resource Control
The main aspect of inbound edge resource control is per-slice traffic
capacity enforcement. This kind of enforcement is often called
'admission control' or 'traffic conditioning'. The goal of this
inbound enforcement is to ensure that the traffic above the
contracted rate is dropped or deprioritized, depending on the
business rules, right at the edge of TN domain. This, combined with
appropriate network capacity planning/management (Section 7) is
required to ensure proper isolation between slices in scalable
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
manner. As a result, traffic of one slice has no influence on the
traffic of other slices, even if the slice is misbehaving (e.g., DDoS
attack, and equipment failure) and generates traffic volumes above
the contracted rates.
The slice rates can be characterized with following parameters
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]:
* CIR: Committed Information Rate (i.e., guaranteed bandwidth)
* PIR: Peak Information Rate (i.e., maximum bandwidth)
These parameters define the traffic characteristics of the slice and
are part of SLO parameter set provided by the SMO to IETF NSC. Based
on these parameters the inbound policy can be implemented using one
of following options:
* 1r2c (single-rate two-color) rate limiter
This is the most basic rate limiter, which meters at the SDP a
traffic stream of given slice and marks its packets as in-contract
(below contracted CIR) or out-of-contract (above contracted CIR).
In-contract packets are accepted and forwarded. Out-of contract
packets are either dropped right at the SDP (hard rate limiting),
or remarked (with different MPLS TC or DSCP TN markings) to
signify 'this packet should be dropped in the first place, if
there is a congestion' (soft rate limiting), depending on the
business policy of the operator. In the second case, while
packets above CIR are forwarded at the SDP, they are subject to be
dropped during any congestion event at any place in the TN domain.
* 2r3c (two-rate three-color) rate limiter
This was initially defined in [RFC2698], and its improved version
in [RFC4115]. In essence, the traffic is assigned to one of the 3
categories:
- green, for traffic under CIR
- yellow, for traffic between CIR and PIR
- red, for traffic above PIR
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
An inbound 2c3r meter implemented with [RFC4115], compared to
[RFC2698], is more 'customer friendly' as it doesn't impose
outbound peak-rate shaping requirements on customer edge (CE)
devices. 2r3c meters in general give greater flexibility for edge
enforcement regarding accepting the traffic (green), de-
prioritizing and potentially dropping the traffic during
congestion (yellow), or hard dropping the traffic (red).
Inbound edge enforcement mode for 5QI-unaware mode, where all packets
belonging to the slice are treated the same way in the TN domain (no
5Q QoS Class differentiation in the TN domain) is outlined in
Figure 17.
Slice
policer ┌─────────┐
║ ┌───┴──┐ │
║ │ │ │
║ │ S │ │
║ │ l │ │
▼ │ i │ │
──────────────◇────┼──▶ c │ │
│ e │ A │
│ │ t │
│ 1 │ t │
│ │ a │
├──────┤ c │
│ │ h │
│ S │ m │
│ l │ e │
│ i │ n │
──────────────◇────┼──▶ c │ t │
│ e │ │
│ │ C │
│ 2 │ i │
│ │ r │
├──────┤ c │
│ │ u │
│ S │ i │
│ l │ t │
│ i │ │
──────────────◇────┼──▶ c │ │
│ e │ │
│ │ │
│ 3 │ │
│ │ │
└───┬──┘ │
└─────────┘
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Figure 17: Ingress Slice Admission Control (5QI-unware Model)
5.1.2. Outbound Edge Resource Control
While inbound slice admission control at the transport edge is
mandatory in the model, outbound edge resource control might not be
required in all use cases. Use cases that specifically call for
outbound edge resource control are:
* Slices use both CIR and PIR parameters, and transport edge links
(attachment circuits) are dimensioned to fulfil the aggregate of
slice CIRs. If at any given time, some slices send the traffic
above CIR, congestion in outbound direction on the transport edge
link might happen. Therefore, fine-grained resource control to
guarantee at least CIR for each slice is required.
* Any-to-Any (A2A) connectivity constructs are deployed, again
resulting in potential congestion in outbound direction on the
transport edge links, even if only slice CIR parameters are used.
This again requires fine-grained resource control per slice in
outbound direction at transport edge links.
As opposed to inbound edge resource control, typically implemented
with rate-limiters/policers, outbound resource control is typically
implemented with a weighted/priority queuing, potentially combined
with optional shapers (per slice). A detailed analysis of different
queuing mechanisms is out of scope for this document, but is provided
in [RFC7806].
Figure 18 outlines the outbound edge resource control model at the
transport network layer for 5QI-unaware slices. Each slice is
assigned a single egress queue. The sum of slice CIRs, used as the
weight in weighted queueing model, MUST NOT exceed the physical
capacity of the attachment circuit. Slice requests above this limit
MUST be rejected by the NSC, unless an already established slice with
lower priority, if such exists, is preempted.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌─────────┐ QoS output queues
│ ┌───┴──┐─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ │ S │ ╲│╱
│ │ l │ │
│ │ i │ │
│ A │ c │ │ weight=Slice-1-CIR
│ t │ e ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │ shaping=Slice-1-PIR
───┼──t──┼────▶ │ │
│ a │ 1 └─┬──────────────────────────┘ ╱│╲
│ c ├──────┤─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ h │ S │ ╲│╱
│ m │ l │ │
│ e │ i │ │
│ n │ c │ │ weight=Slice-2-CIR
│ t │ e ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │ shaping=Slice-2-PIR
───┼─────┼────▶ │ │
│ C │ 2 └─┬──────────────────────────┘ ╱│╲
│ i ├──────┤─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ r │ S │ ╲│╱
│ c │ l │ │
│ u │ i │ │
│ i │ c │ │ weight=Slice-3-CIR
│ t │ e ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │ shaping=Slice-3-PIR
───┼─────┼────▶ │ │
│ │ 3 └─┬──────────────────────────┘ ╱│╲
│ └───┬──┘─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
└─────────┘
Figure 18: Ingress Slice Admission control (5QI-unaware Model)
5.2. 5QI-aware Mode
In the 5QI-aware model, potentially a large number of 5Q QoS Classes
(the architecture scales to thousands of 5Q slices) is mapped
(multiplexed) to up to 8 TN QoS Classes used in transport transit
equipment, as outlined in Figure 19.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓ ETN │
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃
┃ SDP ┃ ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┫
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ ┃ Transit link ┃
┃ │ 5G QoS A ├───────────────┐ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
I ┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ ├──▶ TN QoS Class 1 │ ┃
E ┃ ┌──────────┐ ┃ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
T ┃│ │ 5G QoS B ├───────────┐ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
F ┃ └──────────┘ ┃ │ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 2 │ ┃
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
N ┃ │ 5G QoS C ├──╋─────┐ │ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
S ┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ │ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 3 │ ┃
┃ ┌──────────┐ ┃ │ │ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
1 ┃│ │ 5G QoS D ├─────┐ │ │ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃ └──────────┘ ┃ │ │ ├──────▶ TN QoS Class 4 │ ┃
┃└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘┃ │ │ │ │ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ │ │ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃ ┌──────────┐ ┃ │ ├─────────▶ TN QoS Class 5 │ ┃
┃│ │ 5G QoS A ├─────│──│──│───┘ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
I ┃ └──────────┘ ┃ │ │ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
E ┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 6 │ ┃
T ┃ │ 5G QoS E ├─────│──│──┘ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
F ┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃ ┌──────────┐ ┃ │ │ ┃│ TN QoS Class 7 │ ┃
N ┃│ │ 5G QoS F ├─────│──┘ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
S ┃ └──────────┘ ┃ │ ┃┌────────────────────────┐ ┃
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ ├────────────▶ TN QoS Class 8 │ ┃
2 ┃ │ 5G QoS G ├─────┘ ┃└────────────────────────┘ ┃
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ ┃ Max 8 TN Classes ┃
┃ SDP ┃ ┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
┃└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘┃ │
┣━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
Fine-grained QoS enforcement Coarse QoS enforcement
(dedicated resources per (resources shared by
IETF Network Slice) multiple IETF NSs)
Figure 19: Slice 5Q QoS to TN QoS Mapping (5QI-aware Model)
Given the fact that in large scale deployments (large number of 5G
slices), the number of potential 5G QoS Classes is much higher than
the number of TN QoS Classes, multiple 5G QoS Classes with similar
characteristics - potentially from different IETF Network Slices -
can be mapped to a same TN QoS Class when transported in the TN
domain. That is, common per hop behavior (PHB) is executed on
transit TN routers for all packets grouped together.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Like in 5QI-unaware model, the original IP header retains the DCSP
marking corresponding to 5QI (5G QoS Class), while the new header
(MPLS or IPv6) carries QoS marking related to TN QoS Class. Based on
TN QoS Class marking, per hop behavior for all aggregated 5G QoS
Classes from all IETF Network Slices is executed on TN links. TN
domain transit routers do not evaluate original IP header for QoS
related decisions. The original DSCP marking retained in the
original IP header is used at the PE for fine-grained per slice and
per 5G QoS Class inbound/outbound enforcement on AC link.
In 5QI-aware model edge resources are controlled in an even more
granular, fine-grained manner, with dedicated resource allocation for
each IETF Network Slice and dedicated resource allocation for number
of traffic classes (most commonly up 4 or 8 traffic classes,
depending on the HW capability of the equipment) within each IETF
Network Slice.
5.2.1. Inbound Edge Resource Control
Compared to the 5QI-unware model, admission control (traffic
conditioning) in the 5QI-aware model is more granular, as it enforces
not only per slice capacity constraints, but may as well enforce the
constraints per 5G QoS Class within each slice.
5G slice using multiple 5QIs can potentially specify rates in one of
the following ways
* rates per traffic class (CIR, or CIR+PIR), no rate per slice (sum
of rates per class gives the rate per slice)
* rate per slice (CIR, or CIR+PIR), and rates per prioritized
(premium) traffic classes (CIR only). Best effort traffic class
uses the bandwidth (within slice CIR/PIR) not consumed by
prioritized classes
In the first option, the slice admission control is executed with
traffic class granularity, as outlined in Figure 20. In this model,
if a premium class doesn't consume all available class capacity, it
cannot be reused by non-premium (i.e., Best Effort) class.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Class ┌─────────┐
policer ┌──┴───┐ │
│ │ │
5Q-QoS-A: CIR-1A ──────◇───────────┼──▶ S │ │
5Q-QoS-B: CIR-1B ──────◇───────────┼──▶ l │ │
5Q-QoS-C: CIR-1C ──────◇───────────┼──▶ i │ │
│ c │ │
│ e │ │
BE CIR/PIR-1D ──────◇───────────┼──▶ │ A │
│ 1 │ t │
│ │ t │
├──────┤ a │
│ │ c │
5Q-QoS-A: CIR-2A ──────◇───────────┼─▶ S │ h │
5Q-QoS-B: CIR-2B ──────◇───────────┼─▶ l │ m │
5Q-QoS-C: CIR-2C ──────◇───────────┼─▶ i │ e │
│ c │ n │
│ e │ t │
BE CIR/PIR-2D ──────◇───────────┼─▶ │ │
│ 2 │ C │
│ │ i │
├──────┤ r │
│ │ c │
5Q-QoS-A: CIR-3A ──────◇───────────┼─▶ S │ u │
5Q-QoS-B: CIR-3B ──────◇───────────┼─▶ l │ i │
5Q-QoS-C: CIR-3C ──────◇───────────┼─▶ i │ t │
│ c │ │
│ e │ │
BE CIR/PIR-3D───────◇───────────┼─▶ │ │
│ 3 │ │
│ │ │
└──┬───┘ │
└─────────┘
Figure 20: Ingress Slice Admission Control (5QI-aware Model)
The second model combines the advantages of 5QI-unaware model (per
slice admission control) with the per traffic class admission
control, as outlined in Figure 20. Ingress admission control is at
class granularity for premium classes (CIR only). Non-premium class
(i.e. Best Effort) has no separate class admission control policy,
but is allowed to use entire slice capacity, which is available at
any given moment. I.e., slice capacity, which is not consumed by
premium classes. It is a hierarchical model, as depicted in
Figure 21.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Slice
policer ┌─────────┐
Class . ┌──┴───┐ │
policer ; : │ │ │
5Q-QoS-A: CIR-1A ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ S │ │
5Q-QoS-B: CIR-1B ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ l │ │
5Q-QoS-C: CIR-1C ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ i │ │
│ │ │ c │ │
│ │ │ e │ │
BE CIR/PIR-1D ──────────────┤─┼──┼──▶ │ A │
│ │ │ 1 │ t │
: ; │ │ t │
. ├──────┤ a │
; : │ │ c │
5Q-QoS-A: CIR-2A ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ S │ h │
5Q-QoS-B: CIR-2B ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ l │ m │
5Q-QoS-C: CIR-2C ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ i │ e │
│ │ │ c │ n │
│ │ │ e │ t │
BE CIR/PIR-2D ──────────────┤─┼──┼──▶ │ │
│ │ │ 2 │ C │
: ; │ │ i │
. ├──────┤ r │
; : │ │ c │
5Q-QoS-A: CIR-3A ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ S │ u │
5Q-QoS-B: CIR-3B ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ l │ i │
5Q-QoS-C: CIR-3C ────◇─────────┤─┼──┼──▶ i │ t │
│ │ │ c │ │
│ │ │ e │ │
BE CIR/PIR-3D ──────────────┤─┼──┼──▶ │ │
│ │ │ 3 │ │
: ; │ │ │
' └──┬───┘ │
└─────────┘
Figure 21: Ingress Slice Admission Control (5QI-aware) - Hierarchical
5.2.2. Outbound Edge Resource Control
Figure 22 outlines the outbound edge resource control model at the
transport network layer for 5QI-aware slices. Each slice is assigned
multiple egress queues. The sum of queue weights (equal to 5Q QoS
CIRs within the slice) CIRs MUST NOT exceed the CIR of the slice
itself. And, similarly to the 5QI-aware model, the sum of slice CIRs
MUST NOT exceed the physical capacity of the attachment circuit.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌─────────┐ QoS output queues
│ ┌───┴──┐─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ │ ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ ╲│╱
───┼─────┼────▶ 5Q-QoS-A: w=5Q-QoS-A-CIR │ │
│ │ S └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ l ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │
───┼─────┼─i──▶ 5Q-QoS-B: w=5Q-QoS-B-CIR │ │
│ │ c └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │ weight=Slice-1-CIR
│ │ e ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │ shaping=Slice-1-PIR
───┼─────┼────▶ 5Q-QoS-C: w=5Q-QoS-C-CIR │ │
│ │ 1 └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │
───┼─────┼────▶ Best Effort (remainder) │ │
│ │ └─┬──────────────────────────┘ ╱│╲
│ A ├──────┤─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ t │ ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ ╲│╱
│ t │ │ │ │
│ a │ └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │
│ c │ S ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │
│ h │ l │ │ │
│ m │ i └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │ weight=Slice-2-CIR
│ e │ c ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │ shaping=Slice-2-PIR
│ n │ e │ │ │
│ t │ └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ 2 ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │
│ C │ │ │ │
│ i │ └─┬──────────────────────────┘ ╱│╲
│ r ├──────┤─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ c │ ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ ╲│╱
│ u │ │ │ │
│ i │ S └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │
│ t │ l ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ i │ │ │
│ │ c └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │ weight=Slice-3-CIR
│ │ e ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │ shaping=Slice-3-PIR
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ 3 └─┬──────────────────────────┘ │
│ │ ┌─┴──────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ └─┬──────────────────────────┘ ╱│╲
│ └───┬──┘─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
└─────────┘
Figure 22: Egress Slice Admission Control (5QI-aware)
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
5.3. Transit Resource Control
Transit resource control is much simpler than Edge resource control.
As outlined in Figure 19, at the edge, 5Q QoS Class marking
(represented by DSCP related to 5QI set by mobile network functions
in the packets handed off to the TN) is mapped to the TN QoS Class.
Based in TN QoS Class, when the packet is encapsulated with outer
header (MPLS or IPv6), TN QoS Class marking (MPLS TC or IPv6 DHCP in
outer header, as depicted in Figure 15 and Figure 16) is set in the
outer header. PHB on transit is based exclusively on that TN QoS
Class marking, i.e., original 5G QoS Class DSCP is not taken into
consideration on transit.
Transit resource control does not use any inbound interface policy,
but only outbound interface policy, which is based on priority queue
combined with weighted or deficit queuing model, without any shaper.
The main purpose of transit resource control is to ensure that during
network congestion events, for example caused by network failures and
temporary rerouting, premium classes are prioritized, and any drops
only occur in non-premium (best-effort) classes. Capacity planning
and management, as described in Section 6, ensures that enough
capacity is available to fulfill all approved slice requests.
6. Transport Planes Mapping Models
A network operator might define various groups of tunnels, where each
tunnel group is created with specific optimization criteria and
constraints. This document refers to such tunnel groups as
'transport planes'. For example, transport plane A might represent
tunnels optimized for latency, transport plane B for high capacity,
transport plane C might represent tunnels using only the "upper half"
of the transport network, and transport plane D might represent
tunnels using only the "lower half" of the transport network.
Figure 23 depicts an example of a simple network with two transport
planes. These transport planes might be realized via various IP/MPLS
techniques, for example Flex-Algo or RSVP/SR traffic engineering
tunnels with or without PCE, and with or without bandwidth
reservations. Section 6 discusses in detail different bandwidth
models that can be deployed in the transport network. However,
discussion about how to realize or orchestrate transport planes is
out of scope for this document.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌───────────────┐ ┌──────┐
│ Head-End PE │ ╔═══════════════════════════════▶│ PE-A │
│ │ ║ ╔═══════════════════════════▷│ │
│ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ │ ║ ╚═════════════════════╗ └──────┘
│ ●══════╝ ╔═════════════════════╝
│ │Transport●════════════════════════════════╗ ┌──────┐
│ Plane A ●═════════════╗ ╚═════▶│ PE-B │
│ │ ●═══════╗ ║ ║ ╔═══╗ ╔═══╗ ╔═════▷│ │
│ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ │ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ └──────┘
│ │ ║ ║ ║ ║ ╚═══╝ ╚═══╝
│ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ │ ║ ║ ║ ║ ┌──────┐
│ ○═══════║══╝ ╚════════════════════════▶│ PE-C │
│ │Transport○═══════║════════╝ ╔═════▷│ │
│ Plane B ○═══════║═════════════════╗ ║ └──────┘
│ │ ○═════╗ ╚═══════════════╗ ║ ║
│ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ │ ║ ╔═╗ ╔═╗ ╔═╗ ╔═╗ ║ ╚══════╝ ┌──────┐
│ │ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ║ ╚══════════════▶│ PE-D │
└───────────────┘ ╚═╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝ ╚═╝ ╚════════════════▷│ │
└──────┘
●════════▶ Tunnels of Transport Plane A
○════════▷ Tunnels of Transport Plane B
Figure 23: Transport Planes
Similar to the QoS mapping models discussed in Section 4, for mapping
to transport planes at the ingress PE, both 5QI-unaware and 5QI-aware
modes are defined. In essence, entire slices can be mapped to
transport planes without 5G QoS consideration (5QI-unaware mode), or
flows with different 5G QoS Classes, even if they are from the same
slice, might be mapped to different transport planes (5QI-aware
mode).
6.1. 5QI-unaware Mode
As discussed in Section 4.1, in the 5QI-unware model, the TN domain
doesn't take into account 5G QoS during execution of per-hop
behavior. The entire slice is mapped to single TN QoS Class,
therefore the entire slice is subject to the same per-hop behavior.
Similarly, in 5QI-unaware transport plane mapping mode, the entire
slice is mapped to a single transport plane, as depicted in
Figure 24.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓ │
┃ Attach. Circuit ┃ PE router
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │
┃ SDP ┃
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │
┃ │IETF NS 1 ├──────────┐
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ │
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ ┌─────────┐ │
┃ SDP ┃ │ │ │
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │Transport│ │
┃ │IETF NS 2 ├──────┐ ├───▶ Plane │
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ │ │ A │ │
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │ │ │ │
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ │ └─────────┘ │
┃ SDP ┃ │ │
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │ │
┃ │IETF NS 3 ├──────┤ │
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ │ ┌─────────┐ │
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │ │ │ │
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ │ │Transport│ │
┃ SDP ┃ ├───│───▶ Plane │
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │ │ B │ │
┃ │IETF NS 4 ├──────┘ │ │ │
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ └─────────┘ │
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃ │
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ │
┃ SDP ┃ │
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │
┃ │IETF NS 5 ├──────────┘
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │
┃ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┃
┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛ │
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
Figure 24: Slice to Transport Plane Mapping (5QI-unaware Model)
It is worth noting that there is no strict correlation between TN QoS
Classes and Transport Planes. The TN domain can be operated with
e.g., 8 TN QoS Classes (representing 8 hardware queues in the
routers), and 2 Transport Classes (e.g., latency optimized transport
plane using link latency metrics for path calculation, and transport
plane following IGP metrics). TN QoS Class determines the per-hop
behavior when the packets are transiting through the TN domain, while
Transport Plane determines the path, optimized or constrained based
on operator's business criteria, that the packets use to transit
through the TN domain.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
6.2. 5QI-aware Mode
In 5QI-aware mode, the traffic can be mapped to transport planes at
the granularity of 5G QoS Class. Given that the potential number of
transport planes is limited, packets from multiple 5G QoS Classes
with similar characteristics are mapped to a common transport class,
as depicted in Figure 25.
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Attach. Circuit ┃ │
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ PE router
┃ SDP ┃ │
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃
┃ │ 5G QoS A ├──────┐ │
I ┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │
E ┃ ┌──────────┐ ┃ │ │
T ┃│ │ 5G QoS B ├──────┤
F ┃ └──────────┘ ┃ │ ┌─────────┐ │
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │ │
N ┃ │ 5G QoS C ├───────────┐ │Transport│ │
S ┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ ├────│────▶ Plane │
┃ ┌──────────┐ ┃ │ │ │ A │ │
1 ┃│ │ 5G QoS D ├───────────┤ │ │
┃ └──────────┘ ┃ │ │ └─────────┘ │
┃└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘┃ │ │
┃┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐┃ │ │ │
┃ ┌──────────┐ ┃ │ │
┃│ │ 5G QoS A ├──────┤ │ ┌─────────┐ │
I ┃ └──────────┘ ┃ │ │ │ │
E ┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │ │Transport│ │
T ┃ │ 5G QoS E ├──────┘ ├────▶ Plane │
F ┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │ │ B │ │
┃ ┌──────────┐ ┃ │ │ │
N ┃│ │ 5G QoS F ├───────────┤ └─────────┘ │
S ┃ └──────────┘ ┃ │
┃│ ┌──────────┐ │┃ │ │
2 ┃ │ 5G QoS G ├───────────┘
┃│ └──────────┘ │┃ │
┃ SDP ┃
┃└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘┃ │
┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
Figure 25: Slice to Transport Plane mapping (5QI-aware Model)
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
7. Capacity Planning/Management
This section describes the information conveyed by the SMO to the
transport controller with respect to slice bandwidth requirements.
Figure 26 shows three DCs that contain instances of network
functions. Also shown are PEs that have links to the DCs. The PEs
belong to the transport network. Other details of the transport
network, such as P-routers and transit links are not shown. Also
details of the DC infrastructure such as switches and routers are not
shown.
The SMO is aware of the existence of the network functions and their
locations. However, it is not aware of the details of the transport
network. The transport controller has the opposite view - it is
aware of the transport infrastructure and the links between the PEs
and the DCs, but is not aware of the individual network functions.
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ DC 1─ ─ ─ ─ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ DC 2─ ─ ─ ─
┌──────┐ │ ┌────┐ ┌────┐ ┌──────┐ │
│ │ NF1A │ ■──┤PE1A│ │PE2A├──■ │ NF2A │
└──────┘ │ └────┘ └────┘ └──────┘ │
│ ┌──────┐ │ │ │ ┌──────┐
│ NF1B │ │ │ NF2B │ │
│ └──────┘ │ │ │ └──────┘
┌──────┐ │ ┌────┐ ┌────┐ ┌──────┐ │
│ │ NF1C │ ■──┤PE1B│ │PE2B├──■ │ NF2C │
└──────┘ │ └────┘ └────┘ └──────┘ │
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ │ Transport │ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ Network │ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ DC 3─ ─ ─ ─
┌────┐ ┌──────┐ │
│ │PE3A├──■ │ NF3A │
└────┘ └──────┘ │
│ │ │ ┌──────┐
│ NF3B │ │
│ │ │ └──────┘
┌────┐ ┌──────┐ │
│ │PE3B├──■ │ NF3C │
└────┘ └──────┘ │
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
■ SDP, with fine-grained QoS (dedicated resources per IETF NS)
Figure 26: An Example of Multi-DC Architecture
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Let us consider 5G Slice X that uses some of the network functions in
the three DCs. If the slice has latency requirements, the SMO will
have taken those into account when deciding which network functions
in which DC would participate in the slice. As a result of that
placement decision, the three DCs shown are involved in 5G Slice X,
rather than other DCs. In order to make this determination, the SMO
needs information from the NSC about the latency between DCs.
Preferably, the NSC would present the topology in an abstracted form,
consisting of point-to-point abstracted links between pairs of DCs
and associated latency and optionally delay variation and link loss
values. It would be valuable to have a mechanism for the SMO to
inform the NSC which DC-pairs are of interest for these metrics -
there may be of order thousands of DCs, but the SMO will only be
interested in these metrics for a small fraction of all the possible
DC-pairs, i.e. those in the same region of the network. The
mechanism for conveying the information will be discussed in a future
version of this document.
Figure 27 shows the matrix of bandwidth demands for 5G slice X.
Within the slice, multiple network function instances might be
sending traffic from DCi to DCj. However, the SMO sums the
associated demands into one value. For example, NF1A and NF1B in DC1
might be sending traffic to multiple NFs in DC2, but this is
expressed as one value in the traffic matrix: the total bandwidth
required for 5G Slice X from DC1 to DC2 (8 units). Each row in the
right-most column in the traffic matrix shows the total amount of
traffic going from a given DC into the transport network, regardless
of the destination DC. Note that this number can be less than the
sum of DC-to-DC demands in the same row, on the basis that not all
the network functions are likely to be sending at their maximum rate
simultaneously. For example, the total traffic from DC1 for Slice X
is 11 units, which is less than the sum of the DC-to-DC demands in
the same row (13 units). Note, as described in Section 4, a slice
may have per-QoS class bandwidth requirements, and may have CIR and
PIR limits. This is not included in the example, but the same
principles apply in such cases.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
To┌──────┬──────┬──────┬──────────────┐
From │ DC 1 │ DC 2 │ DC 3 │Total from DC │
┌──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ DC 1 │ n/a │ 8 │ 5 │ 11.0 │
├──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ DC 2 │ 1 │ n/a │ 2 │ 2.5 │
├──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ DC 3 │ 4 │ 7 │ n/a │ 10.0 │
└──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────────────┘
Slice X
To┌──────┬──────┬──────┬──────────────┐
From │ DC 1 │ DC 2 │ DC 3 │Total from DC │
┌──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ DC 1 │ n/a │ 4 │ 2.5 │ 6.0 │
├──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ DC 2 │ 0.5 │ n/a │ 0.8 │ 1.0 │
├──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ DC 3 │ 2.6 │ 3 │ n/a │ 5.1 │
└──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────────────┘
Slice Y
Figure 27: Inter-DC Traffic Demand Matrix
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang] can be used to convey all
of the information in the traffic matrix to the IETF NSC. The IETF
NSC applies policers corresponding to the last column in the traffic
matrix to the appropriate PE routers, in order to enforce the
bandwidth contract. For example, it applies a policer of 11 units to
PE1A and PE1B that face DC1, as this is the total bandwidth that DC1
sends into the transport network corresponding to Slice X. Also, the
controller may apply shapers in the direction from the TN to the DC,
if otherwise there is the possibility of a link in the DC being
oversubscribed. Note that a peer NF endpoint of an AC can be
identified using 'peer-sap-id' as defined in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-sap].
Depending on the bandwidth model used in the network (Section 6.1),
the other values in the matrix, i.e., the DC-to-DC demands, may not
be directly applied to the transport network. Even so, the
information may be useful to the IETF NSC for capacity planning and
failure simulation purposes. If, on the other hand, the DC-to-DC
demand information is not used by the IETF NSC, the IETF YANG Data
Model for L3VPN Service Delivery [RFC8299] or the IETF YANG Data
Model for L2VPN Service Delivery [RFC8466] could be used instead of
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang], as they support
conveying the bandwidth information in the right-most column of the
traffic matrix.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
The transport network may be implemented in such a way that it has
various types of paths, for example low-latency traffic might be
mapped onto a different transport path to other traffic (for example
a particular flex-algo or a particular set of TE LSPs), as discussed
in Section 5. The SMO can use
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang] to request low-latency
transport for a given slice if required. However, [RFC8299] or
[RFC8466] do not support requesting a particular transport-type,
e.g., low-latency. One option is to augment these models to convey
this information. This can be achieved by reusing the 'underlay-
transport' construct used in [RFC9182] and [RFC9291].
7.1. Bandwidth Models
This section describes three bandwidth management schemes that could
be employed in the transport network. Many variations are possible,
but each example describes the salient points of the corresponding
scheme. Schemes 2 and 3 use TE; other variations on TE are possible
as described in [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis].
7.1.1. Scheme 1: Shortest Path Forwarding (SPF)
Shortest path forwarding is used according to the IGP metric. Given
that some slices are likely to have latency SLOs, the IGP metric on
each link can be set to be in proportion to the latency of the link.
In this way, all traffic follows the minimum latency path between
endpoints.
In Scheme 1, although the operator provides bandwidth guarantees to
the slice customers, there is no explicit end-to-end underpinning of
the bandwidth SLO, in the form of bandwidth reservations across the
transport network. Rather, the expected performance is achieved via
capacity planning, based on traffic growth trends and anticipated
future demands, in order to ensure that network links are not over-
subscribed. This scheme is analogous to that used in many existing
business VPN deployments, in that bandwidth guarantees are provided
to the customers but are not explicitly underpinned end to end across
the transport network.
A variation on the scheme is that Flex-Algo, defined in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo], is used, for example one Flex-Algo could
use latency-based metrics and another Flex-Algo could use the IGP
metric. There would be a many-to-one mapping of slices to Flex-
Algos.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
While Scheme 1 is technically feasible, it is vulnerable to
unexpected changes in traffic patterns and/or network element
failures resulting in congestion. This is because, unlike Schemes 2
and 3 that employ TE, traffic cannot be diverted from the shortest
path.
7.1.2. Scheme 2: TE LSPs with Fixed Bandwidth Reservations
Scheme 2 uses RSVP-TE or SR-TE LSPs with fixed bandwidth
reservations. By "fixed", we mean a value that stays constant over
time, unless the SMO communicates a change in slice bandwidth
requirements, due to the creation or modification of a slice. Note
that the "reservations" would be in the mind of the transport
controller - it is not necessary (or indeed possible for SR-TE) to
reserve bandwidth at the network layer. The bandwidth requirement
acts as a constraint whenever the controller (re)computes the path of
an LSP. There could be a single mesh of LSPs between endpoints that
carry all of the traffic types, or there could be a small handful of
meshes, for example one mesh for low-latency traffic that follows the
minimum latency path and another mesh for the other traffic that
follows the minimum IGP metric path, as described in Section 5.
There would be a many-to-one mapping of slices to LSPs.
The bandwidth requirement from DCi to DCj is the sum of the DCi-DCj
demands of the individual slices. For example, if only Slice X and
Slice Y are present, then the bandwidth requirement from DC1 to DC2
is 12 units (8 units for Slice X and 4 units for Slice Y). When the
SMO requests a new slice, the transport controller, in its mind,
increments the bandwidth requirement according to the requirements of
the new slice. For example, in Figure 26, suppose a new slice is
instantiated that needs 0.8 Gbps from DC1 to DC2. The transport
controller would increase its notion of the bandwidth requirement
from DC1 to DC2 from 12 Gbps to 12.8 Gbps to accommodate the
additional expected traffic.
In the example, each DC has two PEs facing it for reasons of
resilience. The transport controller needs to determine how to map
the DC1 to DC2 bandwidth requirement to bandwidth reservations of TE
LSPs from DC1 to DC2. For example, if the routing configuration is
arranged such that in the absence of any network failure, traffic
from DC1 to DC2 always enters PE1A and goes to PE2A, the controller
reserves 12.8 Gbps of bandwidth on the LSP from PE1A to PE2A. If, on
the other hand, the routing configuration is arranged such that in
the absence of any network failure, traffic from DC1 to DC2 always
enters PE1A and is load-balanced across PE2A and PE2B, the controller
reserves 6.4 Gbps of bandwidth on the LSP from PE1A to PE2A and 6.4
Gbps of bandwidth on the LSP from PE1A to PE2B. It might be tricky
for the transport controller to be aware of all conditions that
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
change the way traffic lands on the various PEs, and therefore know
that it needs to change bandwidth reservations of LSPs accordingly.
For example, there might be an internal failure within DC1 that
causes traffic from DC1 to land on PE1B, rather than PE1A. The
transport controller may not be aware of the failure and therefore
may not know that it now needs to apply bandwidth reservations to
LSPs from PE1B to PE2A/PE2B.
7.1.3. Scheme 3: TE LSPs without Bandwidth Reservation
Like Scheme 2, Scheme 3 uses RSVP-TE or SR-TE LSPs. There could be a
single mesh of LSPs between endpoints that carry all of the traffic
types, or there could be a small handful of meshes, for example one
mesh for low-latency traffic that follows the minimum latency path
and another mesh for the other traffic that follows the minimum IGP
metric path, as described in Section 5. There would be a many-to-one
mapping of slices to LSPs.
The difference between Scheme 2 and Scheme 3 is that Scheme 3 does
not have fixed bandwidth reservations for the LSPs. Instead, actual
measured data-plane traffic volumes are used to influence the
placement of TE LSPs. One way of achieving this is to use
distributed RSVP-TE with auto-bandwidth. Alternatively, the
transport controller can use telemetry-driven automatic congestion
avoidance. In this approach, when the actual traffic volume in the
data plane on given link exceeds a threshold, the controller, knowing
how much actual data plane traffic is currently travelling along each
RSVP or SR-TE LSP, can tune the paths of one or more LSPs using the
link such that they avoid that link.
It would be undesirable to move a minimum-latency LSP rather than
another type of LSP in order to ease the congestion, as the new path
will typically have a higher latency, if the minimum-latency LSP is
currently following the minimum-latency path. This can be avoided by
designing the algorithms described in the previous paragraph such
that they avoid moving minimum-latency LSPs unless there is no
alternative.
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not make any IANA request.
9. Security Considerations
IETF Network Slices considerations are discussed in Section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
TBC.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
10. References
10.1. 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
IETF Network Slices", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-18, 9 January 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
network-slices-18.txt>.
[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>.
[RFC2698] Heinanen, J. and R. Guerin, "A Two Rate Three Color
Marker", RFC 2698, DOI 10.17487/RFC2698, September 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2698>.
[RFC4115] Aboul-Magd, O. and S. Rabie, "A Differentiated Service
Two-Rate, Three-Color Marker with Efficient Handling of
in-Profile Traffic", RFC 4115, DOI 10.17487/RFC4115, July
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4115>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit]
Boucadair, M., Roberts, R., de Dios, O. G., Barguil, S.,
and B. Wu, "A YANG Service Data Model for Attachment
Circuits", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-boro-
opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-00, 9 January 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-boro-opsawg-teas-
attachment-circuit-00.txt>.
[I-D.gcdrb-teas-5g-network-slice-application]
Geng, X., Contreras, L. M., Rokui, R., Dong, J., and I.
Bykov, "IETF Network Slice Application in 3GPP 5G End-to-
End Network Slice", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-gcdrb-teas-5g-network-slice-application-01, 24
October 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
gcdrb-teas-5g-network-slice-application-01.txt>.
[I-D.henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci]
Henry, J., Szigeti, T., and L. M. Contreras, "Diffserv to
QCI Mapping", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci-04, 13 April 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-henry-tsvwg-
diffserv-to-qci-04.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-26, 17 October
2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-
flex-algo-26.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-sap]
Boucadair, M., de Dios, O. G., Barguil, S., Wu, Q., and V.
Lopez, "A YANG Network Model for Service Attachment Points
(SAPs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
opsawg-sap-13, 9 January 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-
13.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]
Wu, B., Dhody, D., Rokui, R., Saad, T., Han, L., and J.
Mullooly, "IETF Network Slice Service YANG Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-
slice-nbi-yang-03, 24 October 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-
network-slice-nbi-yang-03.txt>.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
[I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls]
Saad, T., Beeram, V. P., Dong, J., Wen, B., Ceccarelli,
D., Halpern, J. M., Peng, S., Chen, R., Liu, X.,
Contreras, L. M., Rokui, R., and L. Jalil, "Realizing
Network Slices in IP/MPLS Networks", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls-01, 24 October
2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-ns-
ip-mpls-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rfc3272bis]
Farrel, A., "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-22, 27 October 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-
rfc3272bis-22.txt>.
[NG.113] GSMA, "NG.113: 5GS Roaming Guidelines Version 4.0", May
2021, <https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/
uploads//NG.113-v4.0.pdf>.
[O-RAN.WG9.XPSAAS]
O-RAN Alliance, "O-RAN.WG9.XPSAAS: O-RAN WG9 Xhaul Packet
Switched Architectures and Solutions Version 02.00", July
2021, <https://www.o-ran.org/specifications>.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
[RFC7806] Baker, F. and R. Pan, "On Queuing, Marking, and Dropping",
RFC 7806, DOI 10.17487/RFC7806, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7806>.
[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>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
[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>.
[TR-GSTR-TN5G]
ITU-T, "Technical Report GSTR-TN5G", February 2018,
<https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/opb/tut/T-TUT-HOME-
2018-PDF-E.pdf>.
[TS-23.501]
3GPP, "TS 23.501: System architecture for the 5G System
(5GS)", 2021,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144>.
[TS-28.530]
3GPP, "TS 23.530: Management and orchestration; Concepts,
use cases and requirements)", 2021,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3273>.
Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations
3GPP: 3rd Generation Partnership Project
5GC: 5G Core
5QI: 5G QoS Indicator
A2A: Any-to-Any
AC: Attachment Circuit
AMF: Access and Mobility Management Function
AUSF: Authentication Server Function
BBU: Baseband Unit
BH: Backhaul
BS: Base Station
CE: Customer Edge
CIR: Committed Information Rate
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
CN: Core Network
CoS: Class of Service
CP: Control Plane
CSP: Communication Service Provider
CU: Centralized Unit
CU-CP: Centralized Unit Control Plane
CU-UP: Centralized Unit User Plane
DC: Data Center
DDoS: Distributed Denial of Services
DN: Data Network
DSCP: Differentiated Services Code Point
DU: Distributed Unit
eCPRI: enhanced Common Public Radio Interface
FH: Fronthaul
FIB: Forwarding Information Base
GPRS: Generic Packet Radio Service
gNB: gNodeB
GTP: GPRS Tunneling Protocol
GTP-U: GPRS Tunneling Protocol User plane
HW: Hardware
ID: Identifier
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol
IP: Internet Protocol
L2VPN: Layer 2 Virtual Private Network
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
L3VPN: Layer 3 Virtual Private Network
LSP: Label Switched Path
MH: Midhaul
MIoT: Massive Internet of Things
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
NF: Network Function
NR: New Radio
NRF: Network Function Repository
NRP: Network Resource Partition
NSC: Network Slice Controller
NSS: Network Slice Subnet
PE: Provider Edge
PIR: Peak Information Rate
PLMN: Public Land Mobile Network
PSTN: Public Switched Telephony Network
QoS: Quality of Service
RAN: Radio Access Network
RF: Radio Frequency
RIB: Routing Information Base
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
RU: Radio Unit
SD: Slice Differentiator
SDP: Service Demarcation Point
SLA: Service Level Agreement
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
SLO: Service Level Objective
SMF: Session Management Function
SMO: Service Management and Orchestration
S-NSSAI: Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information
SST: Slice/Service Type
SR: Segment Routing
SRv6: Segment Routing version 6
TC: Traffic Class
TE: Traffic Engineering
TN: Transport Network
TS: Technical Specification
UDM: Unified Data Management
UE: User Equipment
UP: User Plane
UPF: User Plane Function
URLLC: Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication
VLAN: Virtual Local Area Network
VNF: Virtual Network Function
VPN: Virtual Private Network
VRF: Virtual Routing and Forwarding
VXLAN: Virtual Extensible Local Area Network
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Appendix B. An Overview of 5G Networking
This section provides a brief introduction to 5G mobile networking
with a perspective on the Transport Network. This section does not
intend to replace or define 3GPP architecure, it just provides a
brief overview for readers that do not have a mobile background. For
more comprehensive information, refer to [TS-23.501].
B.1. Key Building Blocks
[TS-23.501] defines the Network Functions (UPF, AMF, etc.) that
compose the 5G System (5GS) Architecture together with related
interfaces (e.g., N1, N2). This architecture has native Control and
User Plane separation, and the Control Plane leverages a service-
based architecture. Figure 28 outlines an example 5GS architecture
with a subset of possible network functions and network interfaces.
┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐
│NSSF │ │ NEF │ │ NRF │ │ PCF │ │ UDM │ │ AF │
└──┬──┘ └──┬──┘ └──┬──┘ └──┬──┘ └──┬──┘ └──┬──┘
Nnssf│ Nnef│ Nnrf│ Npcf│ Nudm│ │Naf
───┴────────┴──┬─────┴──┬───────┴───┬────┴────────┴────
Nausf│ Namf│ Nsmf│
┌──┴──┐ ┌──┴──┐ ┌──┴──────┐
│AUSR │ │ AMF │ │ SMF │
└─────┘ └──┬──┘ └──┬──────┘
╱ │ │ ╲
Control Plane N1 ╱ │N2 │N4 ╲N4
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
User Plane ╱ │ │ ╲
┌───┐ ┌──┴──┐ N3 ┌──┴──┐ N9 ┌─────┐ N6 .───.
│UE ├──┤(R)AN├─────┤ UPF ├────┤ UPF ├────( DN )
└───┘ └─────┘ └─────┘ └─────┘ `───'
Figure 28: 5GS Architecture and Service-based Interfaces
Similar to previous versions of 3GPP mobile networks [RFC6459], a 5G
mobile network is split into the following four major domains
(Figure 29):
* UE, MS, MN, and Mobile:
The terms UE (User Equipment), MS (Mobile Station), MN (Mobile
Node), and mobile refer to the devices that are hosts with the
ability to obtain Internet connectivity via a 3GPP network. An MS
is comprised of the Terminal Equipment (TE) and a Mobile Terminal
(MT). The terms UE, MS, MN, and mobile are used interchangeably
within this document.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
* Radio Access Network (RAN):
Provides wireless connectivity to the UE devices via radio. It is
made up of the Antenna that transmits and receives signals to the
UE and the Base Station that digitizes the signal and converts the
RF data stream to IP packets.
* Core Network (CN):
Controls the CP of the RAN and provides connectivity to the Data
Network (e.g., the Internet or a private VPN). The Core Network
hosts dozens of services such as authentication, phone registry,
charging, access to PSTN and handover.
* Transport Network (TN):
Provides connectivity between sites where 5G Network Functions are
located. The TN may connect sites from the RAN to the Core
Network, as well as sites within the RAN or within the CN. This
connectivity is achieved using IP.
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│
│ ┌────────────┐ ┌────────────┐
│ │ │ │ │
│ ┌────┐ │ │ │ │ .───────.
│ UE ├──────┤ RAN │ │ CN ├────( DN )
│ └────┘ │ │ │ │ `───────'
│ │ │ │ │
│ └──────┬─────┘ └──────┬─────┘
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ ┌─────┴─────────────────┴────┐
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ Transport Network │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ └────────────────────────────┘
│
│ 5G System
│
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
Figure 29: Building Blocks of 5G Architecture (A High-Level
Representation)
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
B.2. Core Network
The 5G Core Network (5GC) is made up of a set of Network Functions
(NFs) which fall into two main categories (Figure 30):
* 5GC User Plane:
The User Plane Function (UPF) is the interconnect point between
the mobile infrastructure and the Data Network (DN). It
interfaces with the RAN via the N3 interface by encapsulating/
decapsulating the User Plane Traffic in GTP Tunnels (aka GTP-U or
Mobile User Plane).
* 5GC Control Plane:
The 5G Control Plane is made up of a comprehensive set of Network
Functions. An exhaustive list and description of these entities
is out of the scope of this document. The following NFs and
interfaces are worth mentioning, since their connectivity may rely
on the Transport Network:
- the AMF (Access and Mobility Function) connects with the RAN
control plane over the N2 interface
- the SMF controls the 5GC UPF via the N4 interface
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
RAN 5G Core (5GC)
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ [AUSF] [NRF] [UDM] etc. │
│ │ │ (Service Based) │
( Architecture)
│ │ │ │
N2 ┌─────┐ N11 ┌─────┐
│ CP ───────────┤ AMF ├─────┤ SMF │ │
└─────┘ └──┬──┘
│ │ │ │ │
│ Control Plane
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
│ User Plane
│ │ │ │ N4 │
N3 ┌──┴──┐ N6 .───────.
│ UP ───────────────────────┤ UPF ├───────▶( DN )
└─────┘ `───────'
│ │ │ │
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
Figure 30: 5G Core Network (CN)
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
B.3. Radio Access Network (RAN)
The RAN connects cellular wireless devices to a mobile Core Network.
The RAN is made up of three components, which form the Radio Base
Station:
* The Baseband Unit (BBU) provides the interface between the Core
Network and the Radio Network. It connects to the Radio Unit and
is responsible for the baseband signal processing to packet.
* The Radio Unit (RU) is located close to the Antenna and controlled
by the BBU. It converts the Baseband signal received from the BBU
to a Radio frequency signal.
* The Antenna converts the electric signal received from the RU to
radio waves
The 5G RAN Base Station is called a gNodeB (gNB). It connects to the
Core Network via the N3 (User Plane) and N2 (Control Plane)
interfaces.
The 5G RAN architecture supports RAN disaggregation in various ways.
Notably, the BBU can be split into a DU (Distributed Unit) for
digital signal processing and a CU (Centralized Unit) for RAN Layer 3
processing. Furthermore, the CU can be itself split into Control
Plane (CU-CP) and User Plane (CU-UP).
Figure 31 depicts a disaggregated RAN with NFs and interfaces.
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
│ │ N3
┌────┐ NR │ ├────┤ 5G Core │
│ UE ├──────┤ gNodeB │
└────┘ │ ├────┤ (5GC) │
│ │ N2
└─────────────────────────────────┘ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
│ │
│ │
│ │
─┘ └─
╲ ╱
╲ ╱
V
┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
│ ┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐ │
│ │ │ │
┌────┐ NR │ ┌────┐ F2 │┌────┐ F1-U ┌─────┐│ │ N3 ┌─────┐
│ UE ├────────┤ RU ├─────┤ DU ├──────┤CU-UP├──────────┤ UPF │ │
└────┘ │ └────┘ │└────┘ └──┬──┘│ │ └─────┘
│ ╲ │ │ │ │
│ │ ╲ │ │ │
│ ╲ │ │ │ │
│ │ ╲ │E1 │ │
│ F1-C ╲ │ │ │ │
│ │ ╲ │ │ │
│ ╲ │ │ │ │
│ │ ╲ │ │ │
│ ┌──┴──┐ │ N2 │ ┌─────┐ │
│ │ │CU-CP├──────────┤ AMF │
│ └─────┘ │ │ └─────┘ │
│ │ │ │
│ BBU split │ │ 5G Core │
│ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘ │
│ │ │ (5GC) │
│ disaggregated gNodeB │
└─────────────────────────────────┘ └ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
Figure 31: RAN Disaggregation
B.4. Transport Network
The 5G transport architecture defines three main segments for the
Transport Network, which are commonly referred to as Fronthaul (FH),
Midhaul (MH), and Backhaul (BH) ([TR-GSTR-TN5G]):
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
* Fronthaul happens before the BBU processing. In 5G, this
interface is based on eCPRI (Enhanced CPRI) with native Ethernet
or IP encapsulation.
* Midhaul is optional: this segment is introduced in the BBU split
presented in Appendix B.3, where Midhaul network refers to the DU-
CU interconnection (i.e., F1 interface). At this level, all
traffic is encapsulated in IP (signaling and user plane).
* Backhaul happens after BBU processing. Therefore, it maps to the
interconnection between the RAN and the Core Network. All traffic
is also encapsulated in IP.
Figure 32 illustrates the different segments of the Transport Network
with the relevant Network Functions.
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
│ Transport Network │
│ │
TN Segment 1 TN Segment 2 TN Segment 3
│ (Fronthaul) (Midhaul) (Backhaul) │
┌───────────┐ ┌────────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
─ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
┌─┴──┐ ┌─┴─┴┐ ┌─┴─┴┐ ┌──┴──┐ .───.
│ RU │ │ DU │ │ CU │ │ UPF ├────( DN )
└────┘ └────┘ └────┘ └─────┘ `───'
Figure 32: 5G Transport Segments
It is worth mentioning that a given part of the transport network can
carry several 5G transport segments concurrently, as outlined in
Figure 33. This is because different types of 5G network functions
might be placed in the same location (e.g., the UPF from one slice
might be placed in the same location as the CU-UP from another
slice).
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
┌ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┐
┌────┐ Colocated
││RU-1│ │ RU/DU
└─┬──┘
│ │ FH-1 │
┌─┴──┐
││DU-1│ │ ┌────┐ ┌─────┐ .───.
└─┬──┘ │CU-1│ │UPF-1├────────( DN )
└ ─│─ ─ ─ ┘ └─┬─┬┘ └─┬───┘ `───'
┌ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
│ MH-1 │ │ BH-1 │ Transport Network │
│ └───────────┘ └────────────┘
┌───────────┐ ┌────────────┐ ┌───────────┐ │
│ │ FH-2 │ │ MH-2 │ │ BH-2 │
─ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┼ ┼ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─│─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
┌─┴──┐ ┌─┴─┴┐ ┌─┴─┴┐ ┌─┴───┐ .───.
│RU-2│ │DU-2│ │CU-2│ │UPF-2├────( DN )
└────┘ └────┘ └────┘ └─────┘ `───'
Figure 33: Concurrent 5G Transport Segments
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Joel Halpern and Tarek
Saad for their reviews of this document and for providing valuable
feedback on it.
Contributors
To be added later
Authors' Addresses
Krzysztof Szarkowicz (editor)
Juniper Networks
Wien
Austria
Email: kszaekiowicz@gmail.com
Richard Roberts (editor)
Juniper Networks
Rennes
France
Email: rroberts@juniper.net
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Julian Lucek
Juniper Networks
London
United Kingdom
Email: jlucek@juniper.net
John Drake
Juniper Networks
Sunnyvale,
United States of America
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Mohamed Boucadair (editor)
Orange
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Ronda de la Comunicacion, s/n
Madrid
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
URI: http://lmcontreras.com/
Ivan Bykov
Ribbon Communications
Tel Aviv
Israel
Email: ivan.bykov@rbbn.com
Reza Rokui
Ciena
Ottawa
Canada
Email: rrokui@ciena.com
Luay Jalil
Verizon
Dallas, TX,
United States of America
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft 5G Transport Slices January 2023
Beny Dwi Setyawan
XL Axiata
Jakarta
Indonesia
Email: benyds@xl.co.id
Amit Dhamija
Rakuten
Bangalore
India
Email: amit.dhamija@rakuten.com
Mojdeh Amani
British Telecom
London
United Kingdom
Email: mojdeh.amani@bt.com
Szarkowicz, et al. Expires 17 July 2023 [Page 62]