Network Working Group E. Gray, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational J. Drake, Ed.
Expires: 14 January 2021 Juniper Networks
13 July 2020
Framework for Transport Network Slices
draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-04
Abstract
This memo discusses setting up special-purpose transport connections
using existing IETF technologies. These connections are called
transport slices for the purposes of this memo. The memo discusses
the general framework for this setup, the necessary system components
and interfaces, and how abstract requests can be mapped to more
specific technologies. The memo also discusses related
considerations with monitoring and security.
This memo is intended for discussing interfaces and technologies. It
is not intended to be a new set of concrete interfaces or
technologies. Rather, it should be seen as an explanation of how
some existing, concrete IETF VPN and traffic-engineering technologies
can be used to create transport slices. Note that there are a number
of these technologies, and new technologies or capabilities keep
being added. This memo is also not intended presume any particular
technology choice.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 January 2021.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Transport Slice Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Management systems or other applications . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Expressing connectivity intents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Transport Slice Controller (TSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Northbound Interface (NBI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Underlying technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Applicability of ACTN to Transport Slices . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
This draft provides a framework for discussing transport slices, as
defined in [I-D.nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition] It is the
intention in this document to use terminology consistent with this
and other definitions provided in that draft.
In particular, this document uses the following terminology defined
in the definitions document:
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
* Transport Slice
* Transport Slice Controller (TSC)
* Transport Network Controller (TNC)
* Northbound Interface (NBI)
* Southbound Interface (SBI)
This framework is intended as a structure for discussing interfaces
and technologies. It is not intended to be 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 ideas expressed here.
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 provide the VPNs is often referred to as an underlay
network, and the VPN is often called an overlay network. As an
example technology, a VPN may in turn serve as an underlay network
for transport slices.
Note: 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, but at least in the beginning there is no
plan for the creation of new protocols or interfaces.
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], 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).
Transport network 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 transport
network can be very different, which requires the transport network
to have the capability of supporting multiple different transport
slices.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
While network slices are commonly discussed in the context of 5G, it
is important to note that transport slices are a narrower concept,
and focus primarily on particular network connectivity aspects.
Other systems, including 5G deployments, may use transport slices as
a component to create entire systems and concatenated constructs that
match their needs, including end-to-end connectivity.
A transport slice could span multiple technologies and multiple
administrative domains. Depending on the transport slice consumer's
requirements, a transport slice could be isolated from other, often
concurrent transport slices in terms of data, control and management
planes.
The consumer expresses requirements for a particular transport slice
by specifying what is required rather than how the requirement is to
be fulfilled. That is, the transport slice consumer's view of a
transport slice is an abstract one.
Thus, there is a need to create logical network structures with
required characteristics. The consumer 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 transport slice consumer 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 a framework for the use of existing
technologies as components to provide a transport slice service, and
might also discuss (or reference) modified and potential new
technologies, as they develop (such as candidate technologies
described in section 5 of [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]).
2. Transport Slice Objectives
It is intended that transport 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.
And it is 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 transport slices to move packets between the specified end-
points in accordance with specified characteristics.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
As an example of requirements that might apply to transport slices,
see [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn] (in particular, section 3).
3. Framework
A number of transport slice services will typically be provided over
a shared underlying network infrastructure. Each transport 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 transport slice
consumer. 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 transport slices.
Transport Slice Definition
([I-D.nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition]) defines the role of a
Customer (or User) and a Transport Slice Controller. That draft also
defines a TSC Northbound Interface (NBI).
A transport slice user is served by the Transport Slice Controller
(TSC), as follows:
* The TSC takes requests from a management system or other
application, which are then communicated via an NBI. This
interface carries data objects the transport slice user provides,
describing the needed transport 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 transport slice connectivity
is meant to look like from the user'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.
* These requests are assumed to be translated by one or more
underlying systems, which are used to establish specific transport
slice instances on top of an underlying network infrastructure.
* The TSC maintains a record of the mapping from user 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.
Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn] provides an example
architecture that might apply in using the technology described in
that document.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
3.1. Management systems or other applications
The transport slice system is used by a management system or other
application. These systems and applications may also be a part of a
higher level function in the system, e.g., putting together network
functions, access equipment, application specific components, as well
as the transport slices.
3.2. Expressing connectivity intents
The Transport Slice Controller (TSC) northbound interface (NBI) can
be used to communicate between transport slice users (or consumers)
and the TSC.
A transport slice user may be a network operator who, in turn,
provides the transport slice to another transport slice user or
consumer.
Using the NBI, a consumer expresses requirements for a particular
slice by specifying what is required rather than how that is to be
achieved. That is, the consumer's view of a slice is an abstract
one. Consumers 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 consumer and provider are
associated with a single administrative domain, in order to reduce
the potential for adverse interactions between transport slice
consumers and other users of the transport network infrastructure.
The benefits of this model can include:
* Security: because the transport network (or network operator) does
not need to expose network details (topology, capacity, etc.) to
transport slice consumers the transport network components are
less exposed to attack;
* Layered Implementation: the transport network comprises network
elements that belong to a different layer network than consumer
applications, and network information (advertisements, protocols,
etc.) that a consumer cannot interpret or respond to (note - a
consumer should not use network information not exposed via the
TSC NBI, even if that information is available);
* Scalability: consumers do not need to know any information beyond
that which is exposed via the NBI.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
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
transport 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 transport
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 ACTN ([RFC8453] and
[RFC8454]). The principles and mechanisms associated with layered
networking are applicable to transport 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:
* 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.
* Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF
Protocol [RFC8040] use XML abnd JSON encoding.
* gRPC/GNMI [I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] uses a binary encoded
programmable interface;
* SNMP ([RFC3417], [RFC3412] and [RFC3414] uses binary encoding
(ASN.1).
* 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;
Structure of Management Information (SMI) [RFC2578] may be used to
define Management Information Base (MIB) modules for SNMP, using
an adapted subset of OSI's Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1,
1988).
While several generic formats and data models for specific purposes
exist, it is expected that transport slice management may require
enhancement or augmentation of existing data models.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
3.3. Transport Slice Controller (TSC)
The transport slice controller takes abstract requests for transport
slices and implements them using a suitable underlying technology. A
transport slice controller is the key building block for control and
management of the transport slice. It provides the
creation/modification/deletion, monitoring and optimization of
transport Slices in a multi-domain, a multi-technology and multi-
vendor environment.
A TSC northbound interface (NBI) is needed for communicating details
of a transport slice (configuration, selected policies, operational
state, etc.), as well as providing information to a slice requester/
consumer about transport slice status and performance. The details
for this NBI are not in scope for this document.
The controller provides the following functions:
* Provides a technology-agnostic NBI for creation/modification/
deletion of the transport slices. The API exposed by this NBI
communicates the endpoints of the transport slice, transport slice
SLO parameters (and possibly monitoring thresholds), applicable
input selection (filtering) and various policies, and provides a
way to monitor the slice.
* Determines an abstract topology connecting the endpoints of the
transport slice that meets criteria specified via the NBI.The TSC
also retains information about the mapping of this abstract
topology to underlying components of the transport slice as
necessary to monitor transport slice status and performance.
* Provides "Mapping Functions" for the realization of transport
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.
* 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 transport slice.
* Using the telemetry data from the underlying realization of a
transport slice (i.e. services/paths/tunnels), evaluates the
current performance against transport slice SLO parameters and
exposes them to the transport slice consumer via the NBI. The TSC
NBI may also include a capability to provide notification in case
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
the transport slice performance reaches threshold values defined
by the transport slice consumer.
3.3.1. Northbound Interface (NBI)
The Transport Slice Controller provides a Northbound Interface (NBI)
that allows consumers of network slices to request and monitor
transport slices. Consumers operate on abstract transport 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 transport slices.
The NBI uses protocol mechanisms and information passed over those
mechanisms to convey desired attributes for transport 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.
To accomplish this, the NBI needs to convey information needed to
support communication across the NBI, in terms of identifying the
transport slices, as well providing the above model information.
3.4. Mapping
The main task of the transport slice controller is to map abstract
transport slice requirements to concrete technologies and establish
the required connectivity, and ensuring that required resources are
allocated to the transport slice.
3.5. Underlying technology
There are a number of different technologies that can be used,
including physical connections, MPLS, TSN, Flex-E, etc.
See [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn] - section 5 - for instance, for
example underlying technologies.
Also, as outlined in "applicability of ACTN to Transport Slices"
below, ACTN ([RFC8453]) offers a framework that is used elsewhere in
IETF specifications to create virtual network (VN) services similar
to Transport Slices.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
A transport slice can be realized in a network, using specific
underlying technology or technologies. The creation of a new
transport slice will be initiated with following three steps:
* Step 1: A higher level system requests connections with specific
characteristics via NBI.
* Step 2: This request will be processed by a Transport Slice
Controller which specifies a mapping between northbound request to
any IETF Services, Tunnels, and paths models.
* Step 3: A series of requests for creation of services, tunnels and
paths will be sent to the network to realize the trasport slice.
It is very clear that regardless of how transport slice is realized
in the network (i.e. using tunnels of type RSVP or SR), the
definition of transport slice does not change at all but rather its
realization.
4. Applicability of ACTN to Transport Slices
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN - [RFC8453]) is an
example of similar IETF work. ACTN defines three controllers to
support virtual network (VN) services -
* Customer Network Controller (CNC),
* Multi-Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC) and
* Provisioning Network Controller (PNC).
A CNC is responsible for communicating a customer's VN requirements.
A MDSC is responsible for multi-domain coordination, virtualization
(or abstraction), customer mapping/translation and virtual service
coordination to realize the VN requirement. Its key role is to
detach the network/service requirements from the underlying
technology.
A PNC oversees the configuration, monitoring and collection of the
network topology. The PNC is a underlay technology specific
controller.
While the ACTN framework is a generic VN framework that is used for
various VN service beyond the transport slice, it is still a suitable
basis to understand how the various controllers interact to realize a
transport slice.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
One possible mapping between the transport slice, and ACTN,
definitions is as shown in Figure 1 below.
+-------------------------------------+
| Customer | |
+-------------------------------------+
^ | ACTN
| Terminology
v | and Concepts
+-------------------------------------+
| A higher level operation system | | +-----+
|(e.g. e2e network slice orchestrator)| ===> | CNC |
+-------------------------------------+ | +-----+
^ ^
| TSC NBI | | CMI
v v
+-------------------------------------+ | +------+
| Transport Slice Controller | ===> | MDSC |
+-------------------------------------+ | +------+
^ ^
| TSC SBI | | MPI
v v
+-------------------------------------+ | +-----+
| Transport Network Controller(s) | ===> | PNC |
+-------------------------------------+ | +-----+
Terminology/Concepts |
Used in this Document
|
Figure 1
Note that the left-hand side of this figure comes from Transport
Slice Definition ([I-D.nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition]).
The TSC NBI conveys the generic transport slice requirements. These
may then be realized using an SBI within the TSC.
As per [RFC8453] and [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-yang], the CNC-MDSC
Interface (CMI) is used to convey the virtual network service
requirements along with the service models and the MDSC-PNC Interface
(MPI) is used to realize the service along network configuration
models. [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang] further describe how
the VPN services can be mapped to the underlying TE resources.
The Transport Network Controller (TNC) is depicted as a single block,
analogous to the Provisioning Network Controller (in this example).
In the ACTN framework, however, it is also possible that the TNC
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
function is decomposed into MDSC and PNC - that is, the TNC may
comprise hierarchy as needed to handle the multiple domains and
various underlay technologies, whereas a PNC in ACTN is intended to
be specific to at most a single underlay technology and (likely) to
individual devices (or functional components).
Note that the details of potential implementations of everything that
is below the TSC in Figure 1 are out of scope in this document -
hence the specifics of the relationship between TNC and PNC, and the
possibility that the MDSC and PNC may be combined are at most
academically interesting in this context. Another way to view this
is that, in the same way that ACTN might combine MDSC and PNC, the
TSC might also directly include TNC functionality.
[RFC8453] also describes TE Network Slicing in the context of ACTN as
a collection of resources that is used to establish a logically
dedicated virtual network over one or more TE networks. In case of
TE enabled underlying network, ACTN VN can be used as a base to
realize the transport network slicing by coordination among multiple
peer domains as well as underlay technology domains.
Figure 1 shows only one possible mapping as each ACTN component (or
interface) in the figure may be a composed differently in other
mappings, and the exact role of both components and subcomponents
will not be always an exact analogy between the concepts used in this
document and those defined in ACTN.
This is - in part - shown in a previous paragraph in this section
where it is pointed out that the TNC may actually subsume some
aspects of both the MDSC and PNC.
Similarly, in part depending on how "customer" is interpreted, CNC
might merge some aspects of the higher level system and the TSC. As
in the TNC/PNC case, this way of comparing ACTN to this work is not
useful as the TSC and TSC NBI are the focus on this document.
5. Considerations
5.1. Monitoring
Transport slice realization needs to be instrumented in order to
track how it is working, and it might be necessary to modify the
transport slice as requirements change. Dynamic reconfiguration
might be needed.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
5.2. Security Considerations
Transport 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 transport slice (for instance,
compute resources) can be just as service degrading as delaying
physical transmission of associated packet in the network.
While a transport slice might include encryption and other security
features as part of the service, consumers might be well advised to
take responsibility for their own security needs, possibly by
encrypting traffic before hand-off to a service provider.
5.3. Privacy Considerations
Privacy of transport network slice service consumers must be
preserved. It should not be possible for one transport slice
consumer to discover the presence of other consumers, nor should
sites that are members of one transport slice be visible outside the
context of that transport 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
transport slice consumer.
5.4. IANA Considerations
There are no requests to IANA in this framework document.
6. Acknowledgments
The entire TEAS NS design team and everyone participating in related
discussions has contributed to this draft. Some text fragments in
the draft have been copied from the [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn], for
which we are grateful.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
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
attended one or more of the design team meetings, including:
* Aihua Guo
* Bo Wu
* Greg Mirsky
* Jeff Tantsura
* Kiran Makhijani
* Lou Berger
* Luis M. Contreras
* Rakesh Gandhi
* Ren Chen
* Sergio Belotti
* Shunsuke Homma
* Stewart Bryant
* Tomonobu Niwa
* Xuesong Geng
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition]
Rokui, R., Homma, S., Makhijani, K., Contreras, L., and J.
Tantsura, "IETF Definition of Transport Slice", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-
definition-03, 12 July 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-
definition-03.txt>.
7.2. Informative References
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
[BBF-SD406]
Broadband Forum, ., "End-to-end network slicing", BBF
SD-406 , n.d..
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-yang]
Lee, Y., Zheng, H., Ceccarelli, D., Yoon, B., Dios, O.,
Shin, J., and S. Belotti, "Applicability of YANG models
for Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
teas-actn-yang-05, 19 February 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang-05.txt>.
[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+)
Services", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
teas-enhanced-vpn-05, 18 February 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-teas-
enhanced-vpn-05.txt>.
[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", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-03, 8 March 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-teas-te-
service-mapping-yang-03.txt>.
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., Borman, P., Hines, M., Lebsack,
C., and C. Morrow, "gRPC Network Management Interface
(gNMI)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01, 5 March 2018,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-openconfig-
rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01.txt>.
[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.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2578, April 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2578>.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
[RFC3412] Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen,
"Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3412,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3412, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3412>.
[RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
(USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3414, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3414>.
[RFC3417] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Transport Mappings for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3417,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3417, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3417>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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.
Contributors
The following authors contributed significantly to this document:
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Dhruv Dhody
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Transport Network Slice Framework July 2020
Huawei, India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Reza Rokui
Nokia
Email: reza.rokui@nokia.com
Xufeng Liu
Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Jie Dong
Huawei
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Eric Gray (editor)
Ericsson
Email: eric.gray@ericsson.com
John Drake (editor)
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Gray & Drake Expires 14 January 2021 [Page 18]
