TEAS Working Group D. King
Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting
Intended status: Informational J. Drake
Expires: February 11, 2021 Juniper Networks
H. Zheng
Huwei Technologies
August 10, 2020
Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks
(ACTN) to TE Network Slicing
draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07
Abstract
Network abstraction is a technique that can be applied to a network
domain that utilizes a set of policies to select network resources
and obtain a view of potential connectivity across the network.
Network slicing is an approach to network operations that builds on
the concept of network abstraction to provide programmability,
flexibility, and modularity. It may use techniques such as Software
Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Function Virtualization (NFV) to
create multiple logical or virtual networks, each tailored for a set
of services share the same set of requirements.
Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) is
described in RFC 8453. It defines an SDN-based architecture that
relies on the concept of network and service abstraction to detach
network and service control from the underlying data plane.
This document outlines the applicability of ACTN to transport network
slicing in a Traffic Engineering (TE) network that utilizes IETF
technology. It also identifies the features of network slicing not
currently within the scope of ACTN, and indicates where ACTN might be
extended.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
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 11, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements for Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Resource Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Service Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Network Virtualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Control and Orchestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered (TE) Networks
(ACTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. ACTN Virtual Network as a Network Slice . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Examples of ACTN Delivering Types of Network Slices . . . 9
3.2.1. ACTN Used for Virtual Private Line Model . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. ACTN Used for VPN Delivery Model . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. ACTN Used to Deliver a Virtual Consumer Network . . . 11
3.2.4. Network Slice Service Mapping from TE to ACTN VN
Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. ACTN VN Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Transport Slice NBI Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
1. Introduction
The principles of network resource separation are not new. For
years, separated overlay and logical (virtual) networking have
existed, allowing multiple services to be deployed over a single
physical network comprised of single or multiple layers. However,
several key differences exist that differentiate overlay and virtual
networking from network slicing.
A network slice is a virtual (that is, logical) network with its own
network topology and a set of network resources that are used to
provide connectivity that conforms to a specific Service Level
Agreement (SLA) or Service Level Objective (SLO). The network
resources used to realize a network slice belong to the network that
is sliced. The resources may be assigned and dedicated to an
individual slice, or they may be shared with other slices enabling
different degrees of service guarantee and providing different levels
of isolaiton between the traffic in each slice.
The term "Transport Network Slice" is used to describe a network
slice that is used to support another network service by carrying
traffic across one or more networks. A transport network slice could
span multiple technologies (such as IP, MPLS, or optical) and
multiple administrative domains.
The logical network that is a transport network slice may be kept
separate from other concurrent logical networks each with independent
control and management. Each can be created or modified on demand.
At one end of the spectrum, a virtual private wire or a virtual
private network (VPN) may be used to build a network slice. In these
cases, the network slices do not require the service provider to
isolate network resources for the provision of the service - the
service is "virtual".
At the other end of the spectrum there may be a detailed description
of a complex service that will meet the needs of a set of
applications with connectivity and service function requirements that
may include compute resource, storage capability, and access to
content. Such a service may be requested dynamically (that is,
instantiated when an application needs it, and released when the
application no longer needs it), and modified as the needs of the
application change. This type of enhanced VPN is described in more
detail in [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn].
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [RFC8453] is a
framework that facilitates the abstraction of underlying network
resources to higher-layer applications and that allows nework
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
operators to create virtual networks for their customers through the
abstraction of the operators' network resources. ACTN is described
further in Section 3.
This document outlines the application of ACTN and associated
enabling technologies to provide transport network slicing in a
network that utilizes IETF technologies such as IP, MPLS, or GMPLS.
It describes how the ACTN functional components can be used to
support model-driven partitioning of variable-sized bandwidth to
facilitate network sharing and virtualization. Furthermore, the use
of model-based interfaces to dynamically request the instantiation of
virtual networks can be extended to encompass requesting and
instantiation of specific service functions (which may be both
physical or virtual), and to partition network resources such as
compute resource, storage capability, and access to content.
Various efforts within the IETF are investigating the concept of
network slicing (for example, [I-D.nsdt-teas-ns-framework]) and
investigate the applicability of IETF protocols to the delivery of
network slicing (for example, [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]). This
document highlights how the ACTN approach might be extended to
address the requirements of network slicing where the underlying
network is TE-capable. It is not the intention that this work
contradicts or competes with other IETF work.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses the following terminology. Many of these terms
are in common usage in other work in the IETF and do not always have
consistent meanings (see for example, [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]
and [I-D.nsdt-teas-ns-framework]). The terms defined below are
intended to give context and meaning for use in this document only
and do not force wider applicability.
Service Provider: A server network or collection of server networks.
The persons or organization responsible for operating such
networks.
Consumer: Any application, client network, or customer of a service
provider. Note that the ACTN framework [RFC8453] refers to the
consumer of a network service as a 'customer' because it will
often be the case that a VPN consumer is a customer of the
operator of the core network that delivers the service. In the
context of a network slice, the consumer may well be a customer,
but might also be a client network of the service provider (which
could also be an internal organization of the service provider),
or an application that engineers traffic in the network.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
Service Functions (SFs): Components that provide specific functions
within a network. SFs are often combined in a specific sequence
called a service function chain to deliver services [RFC7665].
Resource: Any feature including connectivity, compute, storage, and
content delivery that forms part of or can be accessed through a
network. Resources may be shared between users, applications, and
clients, or they may be dedicated for use by a unique consumer.
Infrastructure Resources: The hardware and software for hosting and
connecting SFs. These resources may include computing hardware,
storage capacity, network resources (e.g., links and switching/
routing devices enabling network connectivity), and physical
assets for radio access.
Service Level Agreement (SLA): An agreement between a consumer and
network provider that describes the quality with which features
and functions are to be delivered. It may include measures of
bandwidth, latency, and jitter; the types of service (such as
firewalls or billing) to be provided; the location, nature, and
quantities of services (such as the amount and location of compute
resources and the accelerators required).
Network Slice: An agreement between a consumer and a service
provider to deliver network resources according to a specific
service level agreement. A slice could span multiple technologies
(e.g., radio, transport and cloud) and administrative domains.
Transport Network Slice: A network slice that is used to support
another network service by carrying traffic across one or more
networks. A transport network slice could span multiple transport
technologies (such as IP, MPLS, or optical) and multiple
administrative domains.
2. Requirements for Network Slicing
The concept of network slicing is a key capability to serve consumers
with a wide variety of different service needs express in term of
latency, reliability, capacity, and service function specific
capabilities.
This section outlines the key capabilities required to realize
network slicing in an IETF technology network. Consideration of
slicing in other technology networks (such as radio access networks)
is out of scope.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
2.1. Resource Slicing
Network resources need to be allocated and dedicated for use by a
specific network slice, or they may be shared among multiple slices.
This allows a flexible approach that can deliver a range of services
by partitioning (that is, slicing) the available network resources to
present make them available to meet the consumer's SLA.
2.2. Service Isolation
A consumer may request, through their SLA, that the service deliver
to them is isolated from any other services delivered to any other
consumers. That is, the SLA may request that changes to the other
services do not have any negative impact on the delivery of the
service.
Delivery of such service isolation may be achieved in the underlying
network by various forms of resource partitioning ranging from
dedicated allocation of resources for a specific slice, to sharing or
resources with safeguards.
Although multiple network slices may utilize resources from a single
underlying network, isolation should be understood in terms of:
o Performance isolation requires that service delivery on one
network slice does not adversely impact congestion or performance
levels of other slices.
o Security isolation means that attacks or faults occurring in one
slice do not impact on other slices. Moreover, the security
functions supporting each slice must operate independently so that
an attack or misconfiguration of security in one slice will not
prevent proper security function in the other slices.
o Management isolation means that each slice must be independently
viewed, utilized and managed as a separate network. Furthermore,
it should be possible to prevent the operator of one slice from
being able to control, view, or detect any aspect of any other
network slice.
2.3. Network Virtualization
Network virtualization enables the creation of multiple isolated
virtual networks that are operationally decoupled from the underlying
physical network, and are run on top of it. Slicing should enable
the creation of virtual networks as consumer services.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
2.4. Control and Orchestration
Orchestration combines and coordinates multiple control methods to
provide a mechanism to operate one or more networks to deliver
services. In a network slicing environment, an orchestrator is
needed to coordinate disparate processes and resources for creating,
managing, and deploying the end-to-end service. Two aspects of
orchestration are required:
o Multi-domain Orchestration: Managing connectivity setup of the
transport network slice across multiple administrative domains.
o End-to-end Orchestration: Combining resources for an end-to-end
service (e.g., transport connectivity with firewalling and
guaranteed bandwidth with minimum delay).
3. Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered (TE) Networks (ACTN)
ACTN facilitates end-to-end connections and provides them to the
user. The ACTN framework [RFC8453] introduces three functional
components and two interfaces:
o Customer Network Controller (CNC)
o Multi-domain Service Coordinator (MDSC)
o Provisioning Network Controller (PNC)
o CNC-MDSC Interface (CMI)
o MDSC-PNC Interface (MPI)
RFC 8453 also highlights how:
o Abstraction of the underlying network resources is provided to
higher-layer applications and consumers.
o Virtualization is achieved by selecting resources according to
criteria derived from the details and requirements of the
consumer, application, or service.
o Creation of a virtualized environment is performed to allow
operators to view and control multi-domain networks as a single
virtualized network.
o The presentation of networks to a consumer as a single virtual
network via open and programmable interfaces.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
The ACTN managed infrastructure consists of traffic engineered
network resources, which may include:
o Statistical packet bandwidth.
o Physical forwarding plane sources, such as: wavelengths and time
slots.
o Forwarding and cross-connect capabilities.
The ACTN network is "sliced" with consumers being given a different
partial and abstracted topology view of the physical underlying
network.
3.1. ACTN Virtual Network as a Network Slice
To support multiple consumers, each with its own view of and control
of the server network, a service provider needs to partition the
server network resources to create slices assigned to each consumer.
An ACTN Virtual Network (VN) is a consumer view that is a slice of
the ACTN-managed infrastructure. It is a network slice that is
presented to the consumer by the ACTN provider as a set of abstracted
resources. See [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang] for detailed ACTN VN.
Depending on the agreement between consumer and provider various VN
operations possible:
o Network Slice Creation: A VN could be pre-configured and created
through static configuration or through dynamic request and
negotiation between consumer and service provider. The VN must
meet the network slice requirements specified in the SLA to
satisfy the consumer's objectives.
o Network Slice Operations: The VN may be modified and deleted based
on consumer requests. The consumer can further act upon the VN to
manage traffic flows across the network slice.
o Network Slice View: The VN topology may be viewed from the
consumer's perspective. This may be the entire VN topology or a
collection of tunnels that are expressed as consumer end points,
access links, intra domain paths and inter-domain links.
[RFC8454] describes a set of functional primitives that support these
different ACTN VN operations.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
3.2. Examples of ACTN Delivering Types of Network Slices
The examples that follow build on the ACTN framework to provide
control, management, and orchestration for the network slice life-
cycle. These network slices utilize common physical infrastructure,
and meet specific requirements.
Three examples are shown. Each uses ACTN to achieve a different
network slicing scenario. All three scenarios can be scaled up in
capacity or be subject to topology changes as well as changes of
consumer requirements.
3.2.1. ACTN Used for Virtual Private Line Model
In the example shown in Figure 1, ACTN provides virtual connections
between multiple consumer locations, requested by the requester of a
Virtual Private Line (VPL) service (CNC-A). Benefits of this model
include:
o Automated: the service set-up and operation is network provider
managed.
o Virtual: the private line connectivity is provided from Site A to
Site C (VPL1) and from Site B to Site C (VPL2) across the ACTN-
managed physical network.
o Agile: on-demand when the consumer needs connectivity and fully
adjustable bandwidth.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
(Consumer VPL Request)
:
-------
| CNC-A |
Boundary -------
Between . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . .
Consumer & :
Network Provider ------
| MDSC |
------
:
-----
| PNC |
Site A ( ----- ) Site B
------ ( ) ------
| vCE1 |========( Physical )========| vCE2 |
------ ( Network ) ------
\ (_______) /
\ || /
\ || /
VPL 1 \ || / VPL 2
\ || /
\ || /
\ ------ /
-----| vCE3 |----
------
Site C
Key: ... ACTN control connectivity
=== Physical connectivity
--- Logical connectivity
Figure 1: Virtual Private Line Model
3.2.2. ACTN Used for VPN Delivery Model
In the example shown in Figure 2, ACTN provides VPN connectivity
between two sites across three physical networks. The VPN requestor
(CNC) is managed by the consumer expressed as users of the two VPN
sites. The CNC interacts with the network provider's MDSC. Benefits
of this model include:
o Provides edge-to-edge VPN multi-access connectivity.
o Most of the function is managed by the network provider, with some
flexibility delegated to the consumer managed CNC.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
-------------- --------------
| Site-A Users | | Site-B Users |
-------------- --------------
: :
-------------
| CNC |
Boundary -------------
Between . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . .
Consumer & :
Network Provider :
---------------------------------
| MDSC |
---------------------------------
: : :
: : :
------- ------- -------
| PNC | | PNC | | PNC |
------- ------- -------
: : :
: : :
______ ----- ----- ----- ______
< > ( ) ( ) ( ) < >
<Site A>====( Phys. )======( Phys. )======( Phys. )====<Site B>
< > ( Net ) ( Net ) ( Net ) < >
< > ----- ----- ----- < >
< >-----------------------------------------------< >
<______> <______>
Key: ... ACTN control connectivity
=== Physical connectivity
--- Logical connectivity
Figure 2: VPN Model
3.2.3. ACTN Used to Deliver a Virtual Consumer Network
In this example (shown in Figure 3), ACTN provides a virtual network
to the consumer. This virtual network is managed by the consumer.
Benefits of this model include:
o The MDSC provides the topology as part of the consumer view so
that the consumer can control their network slice to fit their
needs.
o Service isolation can be provided through selection of physical
netowrking resources.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
o Applications can interact with their assigned network slices
directly. The consumer may implement their own network control
methods and traffic prioritization, manage their own addressing
schemes, and further slice their vitrual networks.
o The network slice may include nodes with specific capabilities.
These are delivered as Physical Network Functions (PNFs) or
Virtual Network Functions (VNFs).
------------- ( Network )
| CNC |----------->( Slice 2 )
------------- __(________ )
------------- ( )__)
| CNC |----------->( Network ) ^
------------- ( Slice 1 ) :
^ (___________) :
| ^ ^ :
Boundary | : : :
Between . . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . : . .:. . : . . .
Consumer & | : : :
Network Provider | : : :
v : : :
------------- : :....:
| MDSC | : :
------------- : :
^ ------^-- :
| ( ) :
v ( Physical ) :
------- ( Network ) :
| PNC |<------------>( ) ---^-----
------- | ------- ( )
| PNC |- ( Physical )
| |<-------------------------->( Network )
------- ( )
-------
Key: --- ACTN control connection
... Virtualization/abstraction through slicing
Figure 3: Network Slicing
3.2.4. Network Slice Service Mapping from TE to ACTN VN Models
The role of the TE-service mapping model
[I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang] is to create a binding
relationship across a Layer 3 Service Model (L3SM) [RFC8049], Layer 2
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
Service Model (L2SM) [RFC8466], and TE Tunnel model
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te], via the generic ACTN Virtual Network (VN)
model [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang].
The ACTN VN model is a generic virtual network service model that
allows consumers to specify a VN that meets the consumer's service
objectives with various constraints on how the service is delivered.
The TE-service mapping model [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang]
is used to bind the L3SM with TE-specific parameters. This binding
facilitates seamless service operation and enables visibility of the
underlay TE network. The TE-service model developed in that document
can also be extended to support other services including L2SM, and
the Layer 1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM)
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang] L1CSM network service models.
Figure 4 shows the relationship between the models discussed above.
-------------- --------------
| L3SM |<=======| | ----------
-------------- augment| |..........>| ACTN VN |
-------------- | Augmented | reference ----------
| L2SM |<=======| Service |
-------------- augment| Model | ----------
-------------- | |..........>| TE-topo |
| L1CSM |<=======| | reference ----------
-------------- augment| |
-------------- | | ----------
| TE & Service |------->| |..........>| TE-tunnel|
| Mapping Types| import -------------- reference ----------
--------------
Figure 4: TE-Service Mapping
3.3. ACTN VN Telemetry
The ACTN VN KPI telemetry model
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics] provides a way for a
consumer to define performance monitoring relevant for its VN/network
slice via the NETCONF subscription mechanisms [RFC8639], [RFC8640] or
the equivalent mechanisms in RESTCONF [RFC8641], [RFC8650].
Key characteristics of [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics]
include:
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
o An ability to provide scalable VN-level telemetry aggregation
based on consumer subscription model for key performance
parameters defined by the consumer.
o An ability to facilitate proactive re-optimization and
reconfiguration of VNs/network slices based on network autonomic
traffic engineering scaling configuration mechanism.
4. Transport Slice NBI Model
The Northbound Interface (NBI) for a network management or
orchestration system allows a consumer of a service to make requests
for delivery of the service, and facilitates the consumer modifying
and monitoring the service.
When an ACTN system is used to manage the delivery of network slices,
a network slice, or "transport network slice", resource model is
needed. This model will be used for instantiation, operation, and
monitoring of network and function resource slices. The YANG model
defined in [I-D.wd-teas-transport-slice-yang] provides a suitable
basis for requesting, controlling and deleting, network slices.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for action by IANA.
6. Security Considerations
Network slicing involves the control of network resources in order to
meet the service requirements of consumers. In some deployment
models, the consumer is able to directly request modification in the
behaviour of resources owned and operated by a service provider.
Such changes could significantly affect the service provider's
ability to provide services to other consumers. Furthermore, the
resources allocated for or consumed by a consumer will normally be
billable by the service provider.
Therefore, it is crucial that the mechanisms used in any network
slicing system allow for authentication of requests, security of
those requests, and tracking of resource allocations.
It should also be noted that while the partitioning or slicing of
resources is virtual, the consumers expect and require that there is
no risk of leakage of data from one slice to another, no transfer of
knowledge of the structure or even existence of other slices, and
that changes to one slice (under the control of one consumer) should
not have detrimental effects on the operation of other slices
(whether under control of different or the same consumers) beyond the
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
limits allowed within the SLA. Thus, slices are assumed to be
private and to provide the appearance of genuine physical
connectivity.
ACTN operates using the NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]
protocols and assumes the security characteristics of those
protocols. Deployment models for ACTN should fully explore the
authentication and other security aspects before networks start to
carry live traffic.
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Qin Wu, Andy Jones, Ramon Casellas, and Gert Grammel for
their insight and useful discussions about network slicing.
8. Contributors
The following people contributed text to this document.
Young Lee
Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com
Mohamed Boucadair
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Sergio Belotti
Email: sergio.belotti@nokia.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Haomian Zheng
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Adrian Farrel
adrian@olddog.co.uk
9. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang]
Lee, Y., Lee, K., Zheng, H., Dhody, D., Dios, O., and D.
Ceccarelli, "A YANG Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service
Model (L1CSM)", draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-11 (work in
progress), March 2020.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics]
Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Karunanithi, S., Vilata, R., King, D.,
and D. Ceccarelli, "YANG models for VN/TE Performance
Monitoring Telemetry and Scaling Intent Autonomics",
draft-ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-03 (work in
progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang]
Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bryskin, I., and B.
Yoon, "A YANG Data Model for VN Operation", draft-ietf-
teas-actn-vn-yang-09 (work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]
Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A
Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Networks (VPN+)
Service", draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-06 (work in
progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang]
Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Fioccola, G., WU, Q., Ceccarelli, D.,
and J. Tantsura, "Traffic Engineering (TE) and Service
Mapping Yang Model", draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-
yang-04 (work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te]
Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V., and I. Bryskin,
"A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels, Label
Switched Paths and Interfaces", draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-25
(work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.nsdt-teas-ns-framework]
Gray, E. and J. Drake, "Framework for Transport Network
Slices", draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-04 (work in
progress), July 2020.
[I-D.wd-teas-transport-slice-yang]
Bo, W., Dhody, D., Han, L., and R. Rokui, "A Yang Data
Model for Transport Slice NBI", draft-wd-teas-transport-
slice-yang-02 (work in progress), July 2020.
[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>.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[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>.
[RFC8049] Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki, "YANG Data
Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8049,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8049, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8049>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications",
RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8639>.
[RFC8640] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events
and Datastores over NETCONF", RFC 8640,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8640, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8640>.
[RFC8641] Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications
for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC8641,
September 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8641>.
[RFC8650] Voit, E., Rahman, R., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Clemm, A., and
A. Bierman, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and
Datastores over RESTCONF", RFC 8650, DOI 10.17487/RFC8650,
November 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8650>.
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ACTN and Network Slicing August 2020
Authors' Addresses
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk
John Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Haomian Zheng
Huwei Technologies
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
King, et al. Expires February 11, 2021 [Page 18]