Network Working Group A. Farrel, Ed.
Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting
Intended status: Informational E. Gray
Expires: February 24, 2022 Independent
J. Drake
Juniper Networks
R. Rokui
Nokia
S. Homma
NTT
K. Makhijani
Futurewei
LM. Contreras
Telefonica
J. Tantsura
Microsoft
August 23, 2021
Framework for IETF Network Slices
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-04
Abstract
This document describes network slicing in the context of networks
built from IETF technologies. It defines the term "IETF Network
Slice" and establishes the general principles of network slicing in
the IETF context.
The document discusses the general framework for requesting and
operating IETF Network Slices, the characteristics of an IETF Network
Slice, the necessary system components and interfaces, and how
abstract requests can be mapped to more specific technologies. The
document also discusses related considerations with monitoring and
security.
This document also provides definitions of related terms to enable
consistent usage in other IETF documents that describe or use aspects
of IETF Network Slices.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
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 February 24, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Core Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IETF Network Slice Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Definition and Scope of IETF Network Slice . . . . . . . 6
3.2. IETF Network Slice Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IETF Network Slice System Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Objectives for IETF Network Slices . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Service Level Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.2. Service Level Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. IETF Network Slice Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1. IETF Network Slice Connectivity Types . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. IETF Network Slice Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. IETF Network Slice Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. Expressing Connectivity Intents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. IETF Network Slice Controller (NSC) . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3.1. IETF Network Slice Controller Interfaces . . . . . . 20
5.3.2. Northbound Interface (NBI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4. IETF Network Slice Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
6. Realizing IETF Network Slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1. Procedures to Realize IETF Network Slices . . . . . . . . 23
6.2. Applicability of ACTN to IETF Network Slices . . . . . . 24
6.3. Applicability of Enhanced VPNs to IETF Network Slices . . 24
6.4. Network Slicing and Slice Aggregation in IP/MPLS Networks 25
7. Isolation in IETF Network Slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.1. Isolation as a Service Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.2. Isolation in IETF Network Slice Realization . . . . . . . 26
8. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Introduction
A number of use cases benefit from network connections that along
with the connectivity provide assurance of meeting a specific set of
objectives with respect to network resources use. This connectivity
and resource commitment is referred to as a network slice. Since the
term network slice is rather generic, the qualifying term "IETF" is
used in this document to limit the scope of network slice to network
technologies described and standardized by the IETF. This document
defines the concept of IETF Network Slices that provide connectivity
coupled with a set of specific commitments of network resources
between a number of endpoints over a shared network infrastructure.
Services that might benefit from IETF Network Slices include, but are
not limited to:
o 5G services (e.g. eMBB, URLLC, mMTC)(See [TS23501])
o Network wholesale services
o Network infrastructure sharing among operators
o NFV connectivity and Data Center Interconnect
IETF Network Slices are created and managed within the scope of one
or more network technologies (e.g., IP, MPLS, optical). They are
intended to enable a diverse set of applications that have different
requirements to coexist on the shared network infrastructure. A
request for an IETF Network Slice is technology-agnostic so as to
allow a customer to describe their network connectivity objectives in
a common format, independent of the underlying technologies used.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
This document also provides a framework for discussing IETF Network
Slices. This framework is intended as a structure for discussing
interfaces and technologies. It is not intended to specify a new set
of concrete interfaces or technologies. Rather, the idea is that
existing or under-development IETF technologies (plural) can be used
to realize the concepts expressed herein.
For example, virtual private networks (VPNs) have served the industry
well as a means of providing different groups of users with logically
isolated access to a common network. The common or base network that
is used to support the VPNs is often referred to as an underlay
network, and the VPN is often called an overlay network. An overlay
network may, in turn, serve as an underlay network to support another
overlay network.
Note that it is conceivable that extensions to these IETF
technologies are needed in order to fully support all the ideas that
can be implemented with slices. Evaluation of existing technologies,
proposed extensions to existing protocols and interfaces, and the
creation of new protocols or interfaces is outside the scope of this
document.
1.1. Background
Driven largely by needs surfacing from 5G, the concept of network
slicing has gained traction ([NGMN-NS-Concept], [TS23501], [TS28530],
and [BBF-SD406]). In [TS23501], a Network Slice is defined as "a
logical network that provides specific network capabilities and
network characteristics", and a Network Slice Instance is defined as
"A set of Network Function instances and the required resources (e.g.
compute, storage and networking resources) which form a deployed
Network Slice." According to [TS28530], an end-to-end network slice
consists of three major types of network segments: Radio Access
Network (RAN), Transport Network (TN) and Core Network (CN). An IETF
Network Slice provides the required connectivity between different
entities in RAN and CN segments of an end-to-end network slice, with
a specific performance commitment. For each end-to-end network
slice, the topology and performance requirement on a customer's use
of IETF Network Slice can be very different, which requires the
underlay network to have the capability of supporting multiple
different IETF Network Slices.
While network slices are commonly discussed in the context of 5G, it
is important to note that IETF Network Slices are a narrower concept,
and focus primarily on particular network connectivity aspects.
Other systems, including 5G deployments, may use IETF Network Slices
as a component to create entire systems and concatenated constructs
that match their needs, including end-to-end connectivity.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
A IETF Network Slice could span multiple technologies and multiple
administrative domains. Depending on the IETF Network Slice
customer's requirements, an IETF Network Slice could be isolated from
other, often concurrent IETF Network Slices in terms of data, control
and management planes.
The customer expresses requirements for a particular IETF Network
Slice by specifying what is required rather than how the requirement
is to be fulfilled. That is, the IETF Network Slice customer's view
of an IETF Network Slice is an abstract one.
Thus, there is a need to create logical network structures with
required characteristics. The customer of such a logical network can
require a degree of isolation and performance that previously might
not have been satisfied by traditional overlay VPNs. Additionally,
the IETF Network Slice customer might ask for some level of control
of their virtual networks, e.g., to customize the service paths in a
network slice.
This document specifies definitions and a framework for the provision
of an IETF Network Slice service. Section 6 briefly indicates some
candidate technologies for realizing IETF Network Slices.
2. Terms and Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this document.
o NBI: NorthBound Interface
o NSC: Network Slice Controller
o NSE: Network Slice Endpoint
o SBI: SouthBound Interface
o SLA: Service Level Agreement
o SLI: Service Level Indicator
o SLO: Service Level Objective
The meaning of these abbreviations is defined in greater details in
the remainder of this document.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
2.1. Core Terminology
The following terms are presented here to give context. Other
terminology is defined in the remainder of this document.
Customer: A customer is the requester of an IETF Network Slice
service. Customers may request monitoring of SLOs. A customer
may be an entity such as an enterprise network or a network
operator, an individual working at such an entity, a private
individual contracting for a service, or an application or
software component. A customer may be an external party
(classically a paying customer) or a division of a network
operator that uses the service provided by another division of the
same operator. Other terms that have been applied to the customer
role are "client" and "consumer".
Provider: A provider is the organization that delivers an IETF
Network Slice service. A provider is the network operator that
controls the network resources used to construct the network slice
(that is, the network that is sliced). The provider's network
maybe a physical network or may be a virtual network supplied by
another service provider.
3. IETF Network Slice Objectives
It is intended that IETF Network Slices can be created to meet
specific requirements, typically expressed as bandwidth, latency,
latency variation, and other desired or required characteristics.
Creation is initiated by a management system or other application
used to specify network-related conditions for particular traffic
flows.
It is also intended that, once created, these slices can be
monitored, modified, deleted, and otherwise managed.
It is also intended that applications and components will be able to
use these IETF Network Slices to move packets between the specified
end-points in accordance with specified characteristics.
3.1. Definition and Scope of IETF Network Slice
The definition of a network slice in IETF context is as follows:
An IETF Network Slice is a logical network topology connecting a
number of endpoints using a set of shared or dedicated network
resources that are used to satisfy specific Service Level Objectives
(SLOs) and Service Level Expectations (SLEs).
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
An IETF Network Slice combines the connectivity resource requirements
and associated network behaviors such as bandwidth, latency, jitter,
and network functions with other resource behaviors such as compute
and storage availability. IETF Network Slices are independent of the
underlying infrastructure connectivity and technologies used. This
is to allow an IETF Network Slice service customer to describe their
network connectivity and relevant objectives in a common format,
independent of the underlying technologies used.
IETF Network Slices may be combined hierarchically, so that a network
slice may itself be sliced. They may also be combined sequentially
so that various different networks can each be sliced and the network
slices placed into a sequence to provide an end-to-end service. This
form of sequential combination is utilized in some services such as
in 3GPP's 5G network [TS23501].
An IETF Network Slice is technology-agnostic, and the means for IETF
Network Slice realization can be chosen depending on several factors
such as: service requirements, specifications or capabilities of
underlying infrastructure. The structure and different
characteristics of IETF Network Slices are described in the following
sections.
The term "Slice" refers to a set of characteristics and behaviours
that separate one type of user-traffic from another. An IETF Network
Slice assumes that an underlying network is capable of changing the
configurations of the network devices on demand, through in-band
signaling or via controller(s) and fulfilling all or some of SLOs/
SLEs to all of the traffic in the slice or to specific flows.
3.2. IETF Network Slice Service
A service provider instantiates an IETF network slice service for a
customer. The IETF network slice service is specified in terms of a
set of the customer's endpoints (CEs), a set of one or more
connectivity matrices (point-to-point (P2P), point-to-multipoint
(P2MP), multipoint-to-point (MP2P), or multipoint- to-multipoint
(MP2MP)) between subsets of these CEs, and a set of SLOs and SLEs for
each CE sending to each connectivity matrix. That is, in a given
IETF Network Slice Service there may be one or more connectivity
matrices of the same or different type, each connectivity matrix may
be between a different subset of CEs, and for a given connectivity
matrix each sending CE has its own set of SLOs and SLEs, and the SLOs
and SLEs in each set may be different. However, it is a free choice
for a service provider to decide whether to implement a single
connectivity matrix per IETF Network Slice Service, or to allow
multiple matrices per slice.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
Note that in this context a "connectivity matrix" is a connection
between a set of senders and a set of receivers. Traffic sent by any
sender in the matrix is delivered to all receivers (except back to
itself). Thus, a connectivity matrix may be treated in the manner of
a virtual wire.
It is also the case that a given sending CE may be part of multiple
connectivity matrices within a single IETF network slice service, and
the CE may have different SLOs and SLEs for each connectivity matrix
to which it is sending. Note that a given sending CE's SLOs and SLEs
for a given connectivity matrix apply between it and each of the
receiving CEs for that connectivity matrix.
This approach results in the following possible connectivity
matrices:
o For an MP2MP connectivity matrix with N CEs, each of the N sending
CEs has its own set of SLOs and SLEs and they may all be
different.
o For a P2MP connectivity matrix, there is only one sending CE, and
there is only one set of SLOs and SLEs.
o For an MP2P connectivity matrix with N CEs, there is one receiving
CE and (N - 1) sending CEs. Each sending CE has its own set of
SLOs and SLEs and they may all be different.
o For a P2P unidirectional connectivity matrix, there is only one
sending CE and there is only one set of SLOs and SLEs.
o For a P2P bidirectional connectivity matrix, there are two sending
CEs, there are two sets of SLOs and SLEs which may be different.
If an IETF network slice service customer wants to ensure hub and
spoke connectivity between N CEs in order to control how traffic is
distributed between its CEs, it may request a set of N - 1 P2P
unidirectional connectivity matrices, each between a sending CE spoke
and the hub CE, and a P2MP connectivity matrix between the sending CE
hub and the spoke CEs.
An IETF network slice service provider may freely make a deployment
choice as to whether to offer a 1:1 relationship between IETF network
slice service and connectivity matrix, or to support multiple
connectivity matrices in a single IETF network slice service. In the
former case, the provider might need to deliver multiple IETF network
slice services to achive the function of the second case.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
It should be noted that per Section 9 of [RFC4364] an IETF network
slice service customer may actually provide IETF network slice
services to other customers in a mode sometimes refered to as
"carrier's carrier". In this case, the underlying IETF network slice
service provider may be owned and operated by the same or a different
provider network. As noted in Section 3.1, network slices may be
composed hierarchically or serially.
Section 4.2 provides a description of endpoints in the context of
IETF network slicing. For a given IETF network slice service, the
IETF network slice customer and provider agree, on a per-CE basis
which end of the attachment circuit provides the service demarcation
point (i.e., whether the attachment circuit is inside or outside the
IETF network slice service). This determines whether the attachment
circuit is subject to the set of SLOs and SLEs for the specific CE.
4. IETF Network Slice System Characteristics
The following subsections describe the characteristics of IETF
Network Slices.
4.1. Objectives for IETF Network Slices
An IETF Network Slice service is defined in terms of quantifiable
characteristics known as Service Level Objectives (SLOs) and
unquantifiable characteristics known as Service Level Expectations
(SLEs). SLOs are expressed in terms Service Level Indicators (SLIs),
and together with the SLEs form the contractual agreement between
service customer and service provider known as a Service Level
Agreement (SLA).
The terms are defined as follows:
o A Service Level Indicator (SLI) is a quantifiable measure of an
aspect of the performance of a network. For example, it may be a
measure of throughput in bits per second, or it may be a measure
of latency in milliseconds.
o A Service Level Objective (SLO) is a target value or range for the
measurements returned by observation of an SLI. For example, an
SLO may be expressed as "SLI <= target", or "lower bound <= SLI <=
upper bound". A customer can determine whether the provider is
meeting the SLOs by performing measurements on the traffic.
o A Service Level Expectation (SLE) is an expression of an
unmeasurable service-related request that a customer of an IETF
network slice makes of the provider. An SLE is distinct from an
SLO because the customer may have little or no way of determining
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
whether the SLE is being met, but they still contract with the
provider for a service that meets the expectation.
o A Service Level Agreement (SLA) is an explicit or implicit
contract between the customer of an IETF Network Slice Service and
the provider of the slice. The SLA is expressed in terms of a set
of SLOs and SLEs that are to be applied to the connections between
the service endpoints, and may include commercial terms as well as
the consequences of missing/violating the SLOs they contain.
4.1.1. Service Level Objectives
SLOs define a set of network attributes and characteristics that
describe an IETF Network Slice. SLOs do not describe how the IETF
Network Slices are implemented or realized in the underlying network
layers. Instead, they are defined in terms of dimensions of
operation (time, capacity, etc.), availability, and other attributes.
An IETF Network Slice can have one or more SLOs associated with it.
The SLOs are combined in an SLA. The SLOs are defined for sets of
two or more endpoints and apply to specific directions of traffic
flow. That is, they apply to specific source endpoints and specific
connections between endpoints within the set of endpoints and
connections in the IETF Network Slice.
SLOs define a set of measurable network attributes and
characteristics that describe an IETF Network Slice service. SLOs do
not describe how the IETF network slices are implemented or realized
in the underlying network layers. Instead, they are defined in terms
of dimensions of operation (time, capacity, etc.), availability, and
other attributes. An IETF Network Slice service can have one or more
SLOs associated with it. The SLOs are combined with Service Level
Expectations in an SLA.
An IETF network slice service may include multiple connection
constructs that associate sets of endpoints. SLOs apply to sets of
two or more endpoints and apply to specific directions of traffic
flow. That is, they apply to a specific source endpoint and the
connection to specific destination endpoints.
4.1.1.1. Some Common SLOs
SLOs can be described as 'Directly Measurable Objectives': they are
always measurable. See Section 4.1.2 for the description of Service
Level Expectations which are unmeasurable service-related requests
sometimes known as 'Indirectly Measurable Objectives'.
Objectives such as guaranteed minimum bandwidth, guaranteed maximum
latency, maximum permissible delay variation, maximum permissible
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
packet loss rate, and availability are 'Directly Measurable
Objectives'. Future specifications (such as IETF Network Slice
service YANG models) may precisely define these SLOs, and other SLOs
may be introduced as described in Section 4.1.1.2.
The definition of these objectives are as follows:
Guaranteed Minimum Bandwidth
Minimum guaranteed bandwidth between two endpoints at any time.
The bandwidth is measured in data rate units of bits per second
and is measured unidirectionally.
Guaranteed Maximum Latency
Upper bound of network latency when transmitting between two
endpoints. The latency is measured in terms of network
characteristics (excluding application-level latency).
[RFC2681] and [RFC7679] discuss round trip times and one-way
metrics, respectively.
Maximum Permissible Delay Variation
Packet delay variation (PDV) as defined by [RFC3393], is the
difference in the one-way delay between sequential packets in a
flow. This SLO sets a maximum value PDV for packets between
two endpoints.
Maximum Permissible Packet Loss Rate
The ratio of packets dropped to packets transmitted between two
endpoints over a period of time. See [RFC7680].
Availability
The ratio of uptime to the sum of uptime and downtime, where
uptime is the time the IETF Network Slice is available in
accordance with the SLOs associated with it.
4.1.1.2. Other Service Level Objectives
Additional SLOs may be defined to provide additional description of
the IETF Network Slice service that a customer requests. These would
be specified in further documents.
If the IETF network slice service is traffic aware, other traffic
specific characteristics may be valuable including MTU, traffic-type
(e.g., IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet or unstructured), or a higher-level
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
behavior to process traffic according to user-application (which may
be realized using network functions).
4.1.2. Service Level Expectations
SLEs define a set of network attributes and characteristics that
describe an IETF Network Slice service, but which are not directly
measurable by the customer. Even though the delivery of an SLE
cannot usually be determined by the customer, the SLEs form an
important part of the contract between customer and provider.
Quite often, an SLE will imply some details of how an IETF Network
Slice service is realized by the provider, although most aspects of
the implementation in the underlying network layers remain a free
choice for the provider.
SLEs may be seen as aspirational on the part of the customer, and
they are expressed as behaviors that the provider is expected to
apply to the network resources used to deliver the IETF Network Slice
service. An IETF network slice service can have one or more SLEs
associated with it. The SLEs are combined with SLOs in an SLA.
An IETF Network Slice service may include multiple connection
constructs that associate sets of endpoints. SLEs apply to sets of
two or more endpoints and apply to specific directions of traffic
flow. That is, they apply to a specific source endpoint and the
connection to specific destination endpoints. However, being more
general in nature, SLEs may commonly be applied to all connection
constructs in an IETF Network Slice service.
4.1.2.1. Some Common SLEs
SLEs can be described as 'Indirectly Measurable Objectives': they are
not generally directly measurable by the customer.
Security, geographic restrictions, maximum occupancy level, and
isolation are example SLEs as follows.
Security
A customer may request that the provider applies encryption or
other security techniques to traffic flowing between endpoints
of an IETF Network Slice service. For example, the customer
could request that only network links that have MACsec [MACsec]
enabled are used to realize the IETF Network Slice service.
This SLE may include the request for encryption (e.g.,
[RFC4303]) between the two endpoints explicitly to meet
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
architecture recommendations as in [TS33.210] or for compliance
with [HIPAA] or [PCI].
Whether or not the provider has met this SLE is generally not
directly observable by the customer and cannot be measured as a
quantifiable metric.
Please see further discussion on security in Section 9.
Geographic Restrictions
A customer may request that certain geographic limits are
applied to how the provider routes traffic for the IETF Network
Slice service. For example, the customer may have a preference
that its traffic does not pass through a particular country for
political or security reasons.
Whether or not the provider has met this SLE is generally not
directly observable by the customer and cannot be measured as a
quantifiable metric.
Maximal Occupancy Level
The maximal occupancy level specifies the number of flows to be
admitted and optionally a maximum number of countable resource
units (e.g., IP or MAC addresses) an IETF network slice service
can consume. Since an IETF Network Slice service may include
multiple connection constructs, this SLE should also say
whether it applies for the entire IETF Network Service slice,
for group of connections, or on a per connection basis.
Again, a customer may not be able to fully determine whether
this SLE is being met by the provider.
Isolation
As described in Section 7, a customer may request that its
traffic within its IETF Network Slice service is isolated from
the effects of other network services supported by the same
provider. That is, if another service exceeds capacity or has
a burst of traffic, the customer's IETF Network Slice service
should remain unaffected and there should be no noticeable
change to the quality of traffic delivered.
In general, a customer cannot tell whether a service provider
is meeting this SLE. They cannot tell whether the variation of
an SLI is because of changes in the underlying network or
because of interference from other services carried by the
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
network. And if the service varies within the allowed bounds
of the SLOs, there may be no noticeable indication that this
SLE has been violated.
Diversity
A customer may request that traffic on the connection between
one set of endpoints should use different network resources
from the traffic between another set of endpoints. This might
be done to enhance the availability of the IETF Network Slice
service.
While availability is a measurable objective (see
Section 4.1.1.1) this SLE requests a finer grade of control and
is not directly measurable (although the customer might become
suspicious if two connections fail at the same time).
4.2. IETF Network Slice Endpoints
As noted in Section 3.1, an IETF Network Slice describes connectivity
between multiple endpoints across the underlying network. These
connectivity types are: point-to-point, point-to-multipoint,
multipoint-to-point, or multipoint-to-multipoint.
Figure 1 shows an IETF Network Slice along with its Network Slice
Endpoints (NSEs).
The characteristics of IETF NSEs are as follows:
o The IETF NSEs are conceptual points of connection to IETF network
slice. As such, they serve as the IETF Network Slice ingress/
egress points.
o Each endpoint could map to a device, application or a network
function. A non-exhaustive list of devices, applications or
network functions might include but not limited to: routers,
switches, firewalls, WAN, 4G/5G RAN nodes, 4G/5G Core nodes,
application acceleration, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), server
load balancers, NAT44 [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], HTTP header
enrichment functions, and TCP optimizers.
o An NSE should be identified by a unique ID in the context of an
IETF Network Slice customer.
o In addition to an identifier, each NSE should contain a subset of
attributes such as IPv4/IPv6 addresses, encapsulation type (i.e.,
VLAN tag, MPLS Label etc.), interface/port numbers, node ID etc.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
o A combination of NSE unique ID and NSE attributes defines an NSE
in the context of the IETF Network Slice Controller (NSC).
o During the realization of the IETF Network Slice, in addition to
SLOs, all or subset of IETF NSE attributes will be utilized by the
IETF NSC to find the optimal realization in the IETF network.
o Similarly to IETF Network Slices, the IETF Network Slice Endpoints
are logical entities that are mapped to services/tunnels/paths
endpoints in IETF Network Slice during its initialization and
realization.
Note that there are various IETF TE terms such as access points (AP)
defined in [RFC8453], Termination Point (TP) defined in [RFC8345],
and Link Termination Point (LTP) defined in [RFC8795] which are
tightly coupled with TE network type and various realization
techniques. At the time of realization of the IETF Network Slice,
the NSE could be mapped to one or more of these based on the network
slice realization technique in use.
|----------------------------------|
NSE1 | | NSE2
O.....| |.....O
. | | .
. | | .
. | | .
| |
NSEm | | NSEn
O.....| |.....O
| |
|----------------------------------|
<------------ IETF Network Slice -------------->
between endpoints NSE1 to NSEn
Legend:
NSE: IETF Network Slice Endpoint
O: Represents IETF Network Slice Endpoints
Figure 1: An IETF Network Slice Endpoints (NSE)
4.2.1. IETF Network Slice Connectivity Types
The IETF Network Slice connection types can be point to point (P2P),
point-to-multipoint (P2MP), multipoint-to-point (MP2P), or
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP). They will requested by the higher
level operation system.
4.3. IETF Network Slice Decomposition
Operationally, an IETF Network Slice may be decomposed in two or more
IETF Network Slices as specified below. Decomposed network slices
are then independently realized and managed.
o Hierarchical (i.e., recursive) composition: An IETF Network Slice
can be further sliced into other network slices. Recursive
composition allows an IETF Network Slice at one layer to be used
by the other layers. This type of multi-layer vertical IETF
Network Slice associates resources at different layers.
o Sequential composition: Different IETF Network Slices can be
placed into a sequence to provide an end-to-end service. In
sequential composition, each IETF Network Slice would potentially
support different dataplanes that need to be stitched together.
5. Framework
A number of IETF Network Slice services will typically be provided
over a shared underlying network infrastructure. Each IETF Network
Slice consists of both the overlay connectivity and a specific set of
dedicated network resources and/or functions allocated in a shared
underlay network to satisfy the needs of the IETF Network Slice
customer. In at least some examples of underlying network
technologies, the integration between the overlay and various
underlay resources is needed to ensure the guaranteed performance
requested for different IETF Network Slices.
5.1. IETF Network Slice Stakeholders
An IETF Network Slice and its realization involves the following
stakeholders and it is relevant to define them for consistent
terminology. The IETF Network Slice Customer and IETF network Slice
provider (see Section 2.1) are also stakeholders.
Orchestrator: An orchestrator is an entity that composes different
services, resource and network requirements. It interfaces with
the IETF NSC.
IETF Network Slice Controller (NSC): It realizes an IETF Network
Slice in the underlying network, maintains and monitors the run-
time state of resources and topologies associated with it. A
well-defined interface is needed between different types of IETF
NSCs and different types of orchestrators. An IETF Network Slice
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
operator (or slice operator for short) manages one or more IETF
Network Slices using the IETF NSCs.
Network Controller: is a form of network infrastructure controller
that offers network resources to the NSC to realize a particular
network slice. These may be existing network controllers
associated with one or more specific technologies that may be
adapted to the function of realizing IETF Network Slices in a
network.
5.2. Expressing Connectivity Intents
The NSC northbound interface (NBI) can be used to communicate between
IETF Network Slice customers and the NSC.
An IETF Network Slice customer may be a network operator who, in
turn, provides the IETF Network Slice to another IETF Network Slice
customer.
Using the NBI, a customer expresses requirements for a particular
slice by specifying what is required rather than how that is to be
achieved. That is, the customer's view of a slice is an abstract
one. Customers normally have limited (or no) visibility into the
provider network's actual topology and resource availability
information.
This should be true even if both the customer and provider are
associated with a single administrative domain, in order to reduce
the potential for adverse interactions between IETF Network Slice
customers and other users of the underlay network infrastructure.
The benefits of this model can include:
o Security: because the underlay network (or network operator) does
not need to expose network details (topology, capacity, etc.) to
IETF Network Slice customers the underlay network components are
less exposed to attack;
o Layered Implementation: the underlay network comprises network
elements that belong to a different layer network than customer
applications, and network information (advertisements, protocols,
etc.) that a customer cannot interpret or respond to (note - a
customer should not use network information not exposed via the
NSC NBI, even if that information is available);
o Scalability: customers do not need to know any information beyond
that which is exposed via the NBI.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
The general issues of abstraction in a TE network is described more
fully in [RFC7926].
This framework document does not assume any particular layer at which
IETF Network Slices operate as a number of layers (including virtual
L2, Ethernet or IP connectivity) could be employed.
Data models and interfaces are of course needed to set up IETF
Network Slices, and specific interfaces may have capabilities that
allow creation of specific layers.
Layered virtual connections are comprehensively discussed in IETF
documents and are widely supported. See, for instance, GMPLS-based
networks [RFC5212] and [RFC4397], or Abstraction and Control of TE
Networks (ACTN) [RFC8453] and [RFC8454]. The principles and
mechanisms associated with layered networking are applicable to IETF
Network Slices.
There are several IETF-defined mechanisms for expressing the need for
a desired logical network. The NBI carries data either in a
protocol-defined format, or in a formalism associated with a modeling
language.
For instance:
o Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)
[RFC5440] and GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI) using RSVP-TE
[RFC4208] use a TLV-based binary encoding to transmit data.
o Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF
Protocol [RFC8040] use XML and JSON encoding.
o gRPC/GNMI [I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] uses a binary encoded
programmable interface;
o For data modeling, YANG ([RFC6020] and [RFC7950]) may be used to
model configuration and other data for NETCONF, RESTCONF, and GNMI
- among others; ProtoBufs can be used to model gRPC and GNMI data.
While several generic formats and data models for specific purposes
exist, it is expected that IETF Network Slice management may require
enhancement or augmentation of existing data models.
5.3. IETF Network Slice Controller (NSC)
The IETF NSC takes abstract requests for IETF Network Slices and
implements them using a suitable underlying technology. An IETF NSC
is the key building block for control and management of the IETF
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
Network Slice. It provides the creation/modification/deletion,
monitoring and optimization of IETF Network Slices in a multi-domain,
a multi-technology and multi-vendor environment.
The main task of the IETF NSC is to map abstract IETF Network Slice
requirements to concrete technologies and establish required
connectivity, and ensuring that required resources are allocated to
the IETF Network Slice.
An NSC northbound interface (NBI) is needed for communicating details
of a IETF Network Slice (configuration, selected policies,
operational state, etc.), as well as providing information to a slice
requester/customer about IETF Network Slice status and performance.
The details for this NBI are not in scope for this document.
The controller provides the following functions:
o Provides a technology-agnostic NBI for creation/modification/
deletion of the IETF Network Slices. The API exposed by this NBI
communicates the endpoints of the IETF network slice, IETF Network
Slice SLO parameters (and possibly monitoring thresholds),
applicable input selection (filtering) and various policies, and
provides a way to monitor the slice.
o Determines an abstract topology connecting the endpoints of the
IETF Network Slice that meets criteria specified via the NBI. The
NSC also retains information about the mapping of this abstract
topology to underlying components of the IETF network slice as
necessary to monitor IETF Network Slice status and performance.
o Provides "Mapping Functions" for the realization of IETF Network
Slices. In other words, it will use the mapping functions that:
* map technology-agnostic NBI request to technology-specific SBIs
* map filtering/selection information as necessary to entities in
the underlay network.
o Via an SBI, the controller collects telemetry data (e.g., OAM
results, statistics, states, etc.) for all elements in the
abstract topology used to realize the IETF Network Slice.
o Using the telemetry data from the underlying realization of a IETF
Network Slice (i.e., services/paths/tunnels), evaluates the
current performance against IETF Network Slice SLO parameters and
exposes them to the IETF Network Slice customer via the NBI. The
NSC NBI may also include a capability to provide notification in
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
case the IETF Network Slice performance reaches threshold values
defined by the IETF Network Slice customer.
An IETF Network Slice customer is served by the IETF Network Slice
Controller (NSC), as follows:
o The NSC takes requests from a management system or other
application, which are then communicated via an NBI. This
interface carries data objects the IETF Network Slice customer
provides, describing the needed IETF Network Slices in terms of
topology, applicable service level objectives (SLO), and any
monitoring and reporting requirements that may apply. Note that -
in this context - "topology" means what the IETF Network Slice
connectivity is meant to look like from the customer's
perspective; it may be as simple as a list of mutually (and
symmetrically) connected end points, or it may be complicated by
details of connection asymmetry, per-connection SLO requirements,
etc.
o These requests are assumed to be translated by one or more
underlying systems, which are used to establish specific IETF
Network Slice instances on top of an underlying network
infrastructure.
o The NSC maintains a record of the mapping from customer requests
to slice instantiations, as needed to allow for subsequent control
functions (such as modification or deletion of the requested
slices), and as needed for any requested monitoring and reporting
functions.
5.3.1. IETF Network Slice Controller Interfaces
The interworking and interoperability among the different
stakeholders to provide common means of provisioning, operating and
monitoring the IETF Network Slices is enabled by the following
communication interfaces (see Figure 2).
NSC Northbound Interface (NBI): The NSC Northbound Interface is an
interface between a customer's higher level operation system
(e.g., a network slice orchestrator) and the NSC. It is a
technology agnostic interface. The customer can use this
interface to communicate the requested characteristics and other
requirements (i.e., the SLOs) for the IETF Network Slice, and the
NSC can use the interface to report the operational state of an
IETF Network Slice to the customer.
NSC Southbound Interface (SBI): The NSC Southbound Interface is an
interface between the NSC and network controllers. It is
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
technology-specific and may be built around the many network
models defined within the IETF.
+------------------------------------------+
| Customer higher level operation system |
| (e.g E2E network slice orchestrator) |
+------------------------------------------+
A
| NSC NBI
V
+------------------------------------------+
| IETF Network Slice Controller (NSC) |
+------------------------------------------+
A
| NSC SBI
V
+------------------------------------------+
| Network Controllers |
+------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Interface of IETF Network Slice Controller
5.3.2. Northbound Interface (NBI)
The IETF Network Slice Controller provides a Northbound Interface
(NBI) that allows customers of network slices to request and monitor
IETF Network Slices. Customers operate on abstract IETF Network
Slices, with details related to their realization hidden.
The NBI complements various IETF services, tunnels, path models by
providing an abstract layer on top of these models.
The NBI is independent of type of network functions or services that
need to be connected, i.e., it is independent of any specific
storage, software, protocol, or platform used to realize physical or
virtual network connectivity or functions in support of IETF Network
Slices.
The NBI uses protocol mechanisms and information passed over those
mechanisms to convey desired attributes for IETF Network Slices and
their status. The information is expected to be represented as a
well-defined data model, and should include at least endpoint and
connectivity information, SLO specification, and status information.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
To accomplish this, the NBI needs to convey information needed to
support communication across the NBI, in terms of identifying the
IETF Network Slices, as well providing the above model information.
5.4. IETF Network Slice Structure
An IETF Network Slice is a set of connections among various endpoints
to form a logical network that meets the SLOs agreed upon.
|------------------------------------------|
NSE1 O....| |....O NSE2
. | | .
. | IETF Network Slice | .
. | (SLOs e.g. B/W > x bps, Delay < y ms) | .
NSEm O....| |....O NSEn
|------------------------------------------|
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
.--. .--.
[EP1] ( )- . ( )- . [EP2]
. .' IETF ' SLO .' IETF ' .
. ( Network-1 ) ... ( Network-p ) .
`-----------' `-----------'
[EPm] [EPn]
Legend
NSE: IETF Network Slice Endpoints
EP: Serivce/tunnel/path Endpoints used to realize the
IETF Network Slice
Figure 3: IETF Network Slice
Figure 3 illustrates a case where an IETF Network Slice provides
connectivity between a set of IETF network slice endpoints (NSE)
pairs with specific SLOs (e.g., guaranteed minimum bandwidth of x bps
and guaranteed delay of no more than y ms). The IETF Network Slice
endpoints are mapped to the service/tunnel/path Endpoints (EPs) in
the underlay network. Also, the IETF NSEs in the same IETF network
slice may belong to the same or different address spaces.
IETF Network Slice structure fits into a broader concept of end-to-
end network slices. A network operator may be responsible for
delivering services over a number of technologies (such as radio
networks) and for providing specific and fine-grained services (such
as CCTV feed or High definition realtime traffic data). That
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
operator may need to combine slices of various networks to produce an
end-to-end network service. Each of these networks may include
multiple physical or virtual nodes and may also provide network
functions beyond simply carrying of technology-specific protocol data
units. An end-to-end network slice is defined by the 3GPP as a
complete logical network that provides a service in its entirety with
a specific assurance to the customer [TS23501].
An end-to-end network slice may be composed from other network slices
that include IETF Network Slices. This composition may include the
hierarchical (or recursive) use of underlying network slices and the
sequential (or stitched) combination of slices of different networks.
6. Realizing IETF Network Slices
Realization of IETF Network Slices is out of scope of this document.
It is a mapping of the definition of the IETF Network Slice to the
underlying infrastructure and is necessarily technology-specific and
achieved by the NSC over the SBI.
The realization can be achieved in a form of either physical or
logical connectivity using VPNs, virtual networks (VNs), or a variety
of tunneling technologies such as Segment Routing, MPLS, etc.
Accordingly, endpoints (NSEs) may be realized as physical or logical
service or network functions.
6.1. Procedures to Realize IETF Network Slices
There are a number of different technologies that can be used in the
underlay, including physical connections, MPLS, time-sensitive
networking (TSN), Flex-E, etc.
An IETF Network Slice can be realized in a network, using specific
underlying technology or technologies. The creation of a new IETF
Network Slice will be initiated with following three steps:
o Step 1: A higher level system requests connections with specific
characteristics via the NBI.
o Step 2: This request will be processed by an IETF NSC which
specifies a mapping between northbound request to any IETF
Services, Tunnels, and paths models.
o Step 3: A series of requests for creation of services, tunnels and
paths will be sent to the network to realize the transport slice.
It is very clear that, regardless of how IETF Network Slice is
realized in the network (i.e., using tunnels of different types), the
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
definition of the IETF Network Slice does not change at all. The
only difference is how the slice is realized. The following sections
briefly introduce some existing architectural approaches that can be
applied to realize IETF Network Slices.
6.2. Applicability of ACTN to IETF Network Slices
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN - [RFC8453]) is a
management architecture and toolkit used to create virtual networks
(VNs) on top of a traffic engineering (TE) underlay network. The VNs
can be presented to customers for them to operate as private
networks.
In many ways, the function of ACTN is similar to IETF network
slicing. Customer requests for connectivity-based overlay services
are mapped to dedicated or shared resources in the underlay network
in a way that meets customer guarantees for service level objectives
and for separation from other customers' traffic. [RFC8453] the
function of ACTN as collecting resources to establish a logically
dedicated virtual network over one or more TE networks. Thus, in the
case of a TE-enabled underlying network, the ACTN VN can be used as a
basis to realize an IETF network slicing.
While the ACTN framework is a generic VN framework that can be used
for VN services beyond the IETF network slice, it also a suitable
basis for delivering and realizing IETF network slices.
Further discussion of the applicability of ACTN to IETF network
slices including a discussion of the relevant YANG models can be
found in [I-D.king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing].
6.3. Applicability of Enhanced VPNs to IETF Network Slices
An enhanced VPN (VPN+) is designed to support the needs of new
applications, particularly applications that are associated with 5G
services, by utilizing an approach that is based on existing VPN and
Traffic Engineering (TE) technologies and adds characteristics that
specific services require over and above traditional VPNs.
An enhanced VPN can be used to provide enhanced connectivity services
between customer sites (a concept similar to an IETF Network Slice)
and can be used to create the infrastructure to underpin network
slicing.
It is envisaged that enhanced VPNs will be delivered using a
combination of existing, modified, and new networking technologies.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
[I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn] describes the framework for Enhanced
Virtual Private Network (VPN+) services.
6.4. Network Slicing and Slice Aggregation in IP/MPLS Networks
Network slicing provides the ability to partition a physical network
into multiple isolated logical networks of varying sizes, structures,
and functions so that each slice can be dedicated to specific
services or customers.
Many approaches are currently being worked on to support IETF Network
Slices in IP and MPLS networks with or without the use of Segment
Routing. Most of these approaches utilize a way of marking packets
so that network nodes can apply specific routing and forwarding
behaviors to packets that belong to different IETF Network Slices.
Different mechanisms for marking packets have been proposed
(including using MPLS labels and Segment Rouing segment IDs) and
those mechanisms are agnostic to the path control technology used
within the underlay network.
These approaches are also sensitive to the scaling concerns of
supporting a large number of IETF Network Slices within a single IP
or MPLS network, and so offer ways to aggregate the slices so that
the packet markings indicate an aggregate or grouping of IETF Network
Slices where all of the packets are subject to the same routing and
forwarding behavior.
At this stage, it is inappropriate to mention any of these proposed
solutions that are currently work in progress and not yet adopted as
IETF work.
7. Isolation in IETF Network Slices
7.1. Isolation as a Service Requirement
An IETF network slice customer may request that the IETF network
slice delivered to them is delivered such that changes to other IETF
network slices or services do not have any negative impact on the
delivery of the IETF Network Slice. The IETF Network Slice customer
may specify the degree to which their IETF Network Slice is
unaffected by changes in the provider network or by the behavior of
other IETF Network Slice customers. The customer may express this
via an SLE it agrees with the provider. This concept is termed
'isolation'
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
7.2. Isolation in IETF Network Slice Realization
Isolation may be achieved in the underlying network by various forms
of resource partitioning ranging from dedicated allocation of
resources for a specific IETF Network Slice, to sharing of resources
with safeguards. For example, traffic separation between different
IETF Network Slices may be achieved using VPN technologies, such as
L3VPN, L2VPN, EVPN, etc. Interference avoidance may be achieved by
network capacity planning, allocating dedicated network resources,
traffic policing or shaping, prioritizing in using shared network
resources, etc. Finally, service continuity may be ensured by
reserving backup paths for critical traffic, dedicating specific
network resources for a selected number of IETF Network Slices.
8. Management Considerations
IETF Network Slice realization needs to be instrumented in order to
track how it is working, and it might be necessary to modify the IETF
Network Slice as requirements change. Dynamic reconfiguration might
be needed.
9. Security Considerations
This document specifies terminology and has no direct effect on the
security of implementations or deployments. In this section, a few
of the security aspects are identified.
o Conformance to security constraints: Specific security requests
from customer defined IETF Network Slices will be mapped to their
realization in the underlay networks. It will be required by
underlay networks to have capabilities to conform to customer's
requests as some aspects of security may be expressed in SLEs.
o IETF NSC authentication: Underlying networks need to be protected
against the attacks from an adversary NSC as they can destabilize
overall network operations. It is particularly critical since an
IETF Network Slice may span across different networks, therefore,
IETF NSC should have strong authentication with each those
networks. Furthermore, both SBI and NBI need to be secured.
o Specific isolation criteria: The nature of conformance to
isolation requests means that it should not be possible to attack
an IETF Network Slice service by varying the traffic on other
services or slices carried by the same underlay network. In
general, isolation is expected to strengthen the IETF Network
Slice security.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
o Data Integrity of an IETF Network Slice: A customer wanting to
secure their data and keep it private will be responsible for
applying appropriate security measures to their traffic and not
depending on the network operator that provides the IETF Network
Slice. It is expected that for data integrity, a customer is
responsible for end-to-end encryption of its own traffic.
Note: see NGMN document[NGMN_SEC] on 5G network slice security for
discussion relevant to this section.
IETF Network Slices might use underlying virtualized networking. All
types of virtual networking require special consideration to be given
to the separation of traffic between distinct virtual networks, as
well as some degree of protection from effects of traffic use of
underlying network (and other) resources from other virtual networks
sharing those resources.
For example, if a service requires a specific upper bound of latency,
then that service can be degraded by added delay in transmission of
service packets through the activities of another service or
application using the same resources.
Similarly, in a network with virtual functions, noticeably impeding
access to a function used by another IETF Network Slice (for
instance, compute resources) can be just as service degrading as
delaying physical transmission of associated packet in the network.
While a IETF Network Slice might include encryption and other
security features as part of the service, customers might be well
advised to take responsibility for their own security needs, possibly
by encrypting traffic before hand-off to a service provider.
10. Privacy Considerations
Privacy of IETF Network Slice service customers must be preserved.
It should not be possible for one IETF Network Slice customer to
discover the presence of other customers, nor should sites that are
members of one IETF Network Slice be visible outside the context of
that IETF Network Slice.
In this sense, it is of paramount importance that the system use the
privacy protection mechanism defined for the specific underlying
technologies used, including in particular those mechanisms designed
to preclude acquiring identifying information associated with any
IETF Network Slice customer.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
11. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action.
12. Informative References
[BBF-SD406]
Broadband Forum, "End-to-end network slicing", BBF SD-406,
<https://wiki.broadband-forum.org/display/BBF/SD-406+End-
to-End+Network+Slicing>.
[HIPAA] HHS, "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
- The Security Rule", February 2003,
<https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/
index.html>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]
Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A
Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network (VPN+)
Services", draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-08 (work in
progress), July 2021.
[I-D.king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing]
King, D., Drake, J., Zheng, H., and A. Farrel,
"Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic
Engineered Networks (ACTN) to Network Slicing", draft-
king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10 (work in
progress), March 2021.
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., Borman, P., Hines, M., Lebsack,
C., and C. Morrow, "gRPC Network Management Interface
(gNMI)", draft-openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01 (work in
progress), March 2018.
[MACsec] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Security", 2018,
<https://1.ieee802.org/security/802-1ae>.
[NGMN-NS-Concept]
NGMN Alliance, "Description of Network Slicing Concept",
https://www.ngmn.org/uploads/
media/161010_NGMN_Network_Slicing_framework_v1.0.8.pdf ,
2016.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
[NGMN_SEC]
NGMN Alliance, "NGMN 5G Security - Network Slicing", April
2016, <https://www.ngmn.org/wp-content/uploads/Publication
s/2016/160429_NGMN_5G_Security_Network_Slicing_v1_0.pdf>.
[PCI] PCI Security Standards Council, "PCI DSS", May 2018,
<https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org>.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, DOI 10.17487/RFC4208, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4208>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[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>.
[RFC4397] Bryskin, I. and A. Farrel, "A Lexicography for the
Interpretation of Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Terminology within the Context of the
ITU-T's Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Architecture", RFC 4397, DOI 10.17487/RFC4397, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4397>.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
[RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5212, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5212>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.
[RFC7680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>.
[RFC7926] Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Bitar, N., Swallow, G.,
Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Problem Statement and
Architecture for Information Exchange between
Interconnected Traffic-Engineered Networks", BCP 206,
RFC 7926, DOI 10.17487/RFC7926, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7926>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8345] Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Bahadur, N.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A YANG Data Model for
Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8345>.
[RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453>.
[RFC8454] Lee, Y., Belotti, S., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., and B.
Yoon, "Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE
Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8454, DOI 10.17487/RFC8454,
September 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8454>.
[RFC8795] Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V., Saad, T., Shah, H., and
O. Gonzalez de Dios, "YANG Data Model for Traffic
Engineering (TE) Topologies", RFC 8795,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8795, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8795>.
[TS23501] 3GPP, "System architecture for the 5G System (5GS)",
3GPP TS 23.501, 2019.
[TS28530] 3GPP, "Management and orchestration; Concepts, use cases
and requirements", 3GPP TS 28.530, 2019.
[TS33.210]
3GPP, "3G security; Network Domain Security (NDS); IP
network layer security (Release 14).", December 2016,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=2279>.
Acknowledgments
The entire TEAS Network Slicing design team and everyone
participating in related discussions has contributed to this
document. Some text fragments in the document have been copied from
the [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn], for which we are grateful.
Significant contributions to this document were gratefully received
from the contributing authors listed in the "Contributors" section.
In addition we would like to also thank those others who have
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
attended one or more of the design team meetings, including the
following people not listed elsewhere:
o Aihua Guo
o Bo Wu
o Greg Mirsky
o Lou Berger
o Rakesh Gandhi
o Ran Chen
o Sergio Belotti
o Stewart Bryant
o Tomonobu Niwa
o Xuesong Geng
Further useful comments were received from Daniele Ceccarelli, Uma
Chunduri, Pavan Beeram, Tarek Saad, Med Boucadair, Kenichi Okagi,
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, and Xiaobing Niu.
This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
Horizon 2020 grant agreement number 101015857 Secured autonomic
traffic management for a Tera of SDN flows (Teraflow).
Contributors
The following authors contributed significantly to this document:
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei, India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Jie Dong
Huawei
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Xufeng Liu
Volta Networks
Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel (editor)
Old Dog Consulting
UK
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Eric Gray
Independent
USA
Email: ewgray@graiymage.com
John Drake
Juniper Networks
USA
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Reza Rokui
Nokia
Email: reza.rokui@nokia.com
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IETF Network Slices August 2021
Shunsuke Homma
NTT
Japan
Email: shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com
Kiran Makhijani
Futurewei
USA
Email: kiranm@futurewei.com
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Spain
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Jeff Tantsura
Microsoft Inc.
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Farrel, et al. Expires February 24, 2022 [Page 34]