none L. Qiang, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational P. Martinez-Julia
Expires: December 4, 2017 NICT
L. Geng
China Mobile
J. Dong
K. Makhijan
Huawei
A. Galis
University College London
S. Hares
Hickory Hill Consulting
S. Kuklinski
Orange
June 2, 2017
Gap Analysis for Network Slicing
draft-qiang-netslices-gap-analysis-00
Abstract
This document presents network slicing differentiation from the non-
partition network or from simply partition of connectivity resources.
It lists 15 standardization gaps related to 6 key requirements for
network slicing. It also presents an analysis of existing related
work and other potential solutions on network slicing.
This gap analysis document aims to provide a basis for future works
in network slicing.
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 http://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 December 4, 2017.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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
2. Terminology and Abbreviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overall Requirements in Network Slicing . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Network Slicing Resource Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Related Work in IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. NSRS Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Building NSRS from Protocol Independent Traffic
Engineering Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Cross-Network Segment & Cross-Domain Negotiation . . . . . . 11
5.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Related Work in IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1. Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach
(ANIMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered
Networks (ACTN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.3. Connectivity Provisioning Negotiation Protocol (CPNP) 15
5.3. Other Potential Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Guaranteed Slice Performance and Isolation . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Related Work in IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.1. Virtual Private Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.2. NVO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.3. RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.4. Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.5. Deterministic Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.6. Flexible Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Network Slicing-Domain Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. Traditional Network Abstraction Technologies . . . . . . 18
7.2. Decoupling of Control Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3. Abstraction of Network in Network . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
7.4. Forwarding/Data-plane Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.5. Notion of QoS in Network Slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Slice Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2. Related Work in IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. OAM Operation with Customized Granularity . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.2. Related Work in IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2.1. Overview of OAM tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2.2. Overlay OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2.3. Service Function Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
Network slicing is an approach of flexible isolation of network
resources and functions for dedicated services, providing certain
level of customization and quality guarantee. It establishes
customized dedicated network upon a common infrastructure for
vertical industries with flexible design of functions, different
performance requirements, system isolation and OAM tools.
Several SDOs have investigated the network slicing. Open Network
Foundation (ONF) has developed a recommendation on applying SDN
architecture to Network Slicing [ONF-2016]. 3GPP is studying the
network slicing focusing on radio networks and core networks and it
issued an architecture for Next Generation System [NGS-3GPP-2016]
September 2016. ITU-T IMT 2020 and ITU-T SG13 is studying network
softwarization inclusive of network slicing and it has issues a
number of recommendations: Gap Analysis [IMT2020-2015], Network
Softwarization [IMT2020-2016], Terms [IMT2020-2016bis]. NGMN is
studying the network slicing from the mobile network point of view
[NGMN-2016]. Although other SDOs have done a lot of work, potential
requirements especially in the transmission network and end-to-end
enabling need to be investigated in order to elicit and identify the
technical gaps in IETF for network-slice enabled networks.
In order to establish a network slice that meets various customer's
demands, the infrastructure owner needs to understand how these
demands map with the available network resources and accessible
capabilities. This also requires end-to-end coverage and inter-
domain operation or negotiation between different network segments.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
Different levels of system abstraction are essential enablers for
network slicing. For instance, the infrastructure owner needs to
understand performance metrics such as bandwidth, latency, isolation
requirements, and traffic forwarding restrictions from slice tenants.
Furthermore, these requirements are expected to map with the
capabilities of a specific network slice with the nature of
flexibility, agility and certain level of customization. Slice
tenants do not have to worry about what techniques the slice provider
has adopted to meet their specific requirements. Meanwhile, the
slice provider provides customized OAM to the tenants under
provisioning. Slicing OAM approach is a fundamental capability to
guarantee stable, effective and reliable services for the vertical
industries. It is also expected to be capable of operations with
customized granularity levels that provides robust management
flexibilities.
This document presents the identified key requirements and
investigate potential technical gaps accordingly. To assist
understanding of this document, Section 2 outlines the terminology.
Section 3 introduces overall requirements of network slicing.
Section 4~9 illustrates end-to-end considerations, performance
guarantee, system level abstractions and OAM concerns. Section 10
summarizes the identified gaps.
2. Terminology and Abbreviation
o CNC: customer network controller
o MDSC: multi-domain service coordinator, could be a hierarchical
one
o PNC: physical network controller, each transport network domain
has a PNC
o VN: virtual network
o PCC: path computation client, the physical device (normally is the
ingress device of an LSP) which requests for a path computation
service
o TN domain: transmission network domain
o NSI: network slice instance
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
All of the network slicing related words used in this document are to
interpreted as described in [NS-Framework].
3. Overall Requirements in Network Slicing
This section introduces 6 key requirements of network slicing devried
from [NS-UseCase] as shown in Table 1. These 6 requirements are
organized according to a general network slice working process as
shown in Figure 1: specify the network slicing resource (Req.1);
construct a performance guaranteed end-to-end network slice (Req.2
and Req.3); necessary abstraction for the constructed end-to-end
network slice (Req. 4); Identify the network slice (Req. 5); and
provide OAM operations (Req. 6).
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| network slice management and orchestration <-----+
+----------------------^-------^---------------------------+ |
| | resource
| OAM | specification
| | |
+------------------------v-------+------------------------------+ |
| abstracted network slice instance 1 | |
+--------------------------------+------------------------------+ |
| |
+--------------------------------v------------------------------+ |
| abstracted network slice instance 2 | |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
|
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ |
|NS-Domain| cross-domain |NS-Domain| cross-domain |NS-Domain<-----+
| Manager <--------------> Manager <--------------> Manager |
+---------+ negotiation +---------+ negotiation +---------+
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | | | | |
+-+---------+--------------+---------+--------------+---------+-+
| network slice instance 1 <---+
+-+---------+--------------+---------+--------------+---------+-+ |
| Domain 1| | Domain 2| | Domain 3| isolation
+-+---------+--------------+---------+--------------+---------+-+ |
| network slice instance 2 <---+
+-+---------+--------------+---------+--------------+---------+-+
| | | | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Figure 1: Illustration of Key Requirements
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
+-------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Requirements Illustrated in NS UseCase | Extracted KEY |
| | Requirements |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 1) Resource Reservation; 2) Transparency; | Req 1. Network |
| 3) Multi-Access Knowledge; 4) Multi- | Slicing Resource |
| Dimensional Service Vertical | Specification |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 5) Multi-Domain Coordination; 6) | Req.2 Cross-Network |
| Automated Network Slice Management; 7) | Segment & Cross- |
| Resource Assurance | Domain Negotiation |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 8) Performance Isolation; 9) Secure | Req.3 Guaranteed |
| Isolation; 10) Operation Isolation; 11) | Slice Performance and |
| Reliability | Isolation |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 12) Abstraction; 13) Subnet Concept; 14) | Req.4 Network Slicing |
| Virtualization of Network Functions | Domain-Abstraction |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 15) Agile Resource Adjustment; 16) | Req.5 Slice |
| Function Sharing; 17) Slice | Identification |
| Identification | |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 18) Independent per slice management | Req.6 OAM Operations |
| plane | with Customized |
| | Granularity |
+-------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
Table 1: Requirement Association
o Req.1 Network Slicing Resource Specification: The management
system of both underlying resources/network functions and
overlying resource/network functions provided by operator,
regardless of being automated, human-guided, or human-operated,
needs to manage the description of the resources/network functions
it has "in stock" and "under its control". The objective for
those systems to have such information is that the resources will
form an important part of their business, and thus they must know
"what they have" at every moment, so that, for instance, they are
able to "deliver" the requests without incurring into any
overutilization of their resources. Since the technology-specific
actions will be taken accordingly for delivered requests, the way
resources are described and specified must be homogeneous and
compatible, even among separated domains, providers, and "slicing"
platforms.
o Req.2 Cross-Network Segment & Cross-Domain Negotiation: Network
users in relation to network slicing are entities that operate
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
some set of physical, logical, virtual, or, in general, abstracted
resources that are not owned directly by them but provided by
operators. From terminal to server (or other terminal), an end-
to-end network slice may involve several network segments (e.g.,
RAN, TN, and CN) that owned by different operators. Each segment
may be further divided into different administrative domains.
That is an end-to-end slice is a logical entity composed by
multiple separated components, and the cross-network segment &
cross-domain negotiation is a way to integrate compoments.
o Req.3 Guaranteed Slice Performance and Isolation: In order to
enable the safe, secure, performance guaranteed service for multi-
tenancy on the common physical networks, the isolation in each of
the Data /Control /Management /Service planes are needed in
network slicing. In general, there are two tiers isolations: Soft
and hard isolations. VPN, NVO3, etc. are typical soft isolation
technologies, slices isolated through these technologies still may
compete for underlying resources in extremes. For some critical
services, hard isolation such as FlexE, OTN, etc. are necessary.
o Req.4 Network Slicing Domain-Abstraction: To complement the
previous requirement (i.e.,Req.3), it is important for network
slices to be aware but independent of the domain to which they
belong. This implies that they are abstracted from any specific
domain, so operators can change their behavior without requiring
to reconfigure all individual parts and pieces of the overall
system.
o Req.5 Slice Identification: Identify the network slices and
discovery the corresponding slice. This requirement is associated
with privacy and security characteristics of network slicing. The
major functionalities may include identifier (ID) assignment, ID
certification, ID resolution, etc. In order to implement slice
discovery and identification, the negotiation, monitoring and
other end-to-end orchestration operations are also required.
o Req.6 OAM Operations with Customized Granularity: Different
network slice users (operators, customers) will have different
requirements. On one end of the spectrum we have those operators
that will require a finalized service that they will simply
commercialize. On the other end we have those operators that need
(or want) to fine-tune all the low-level aspects of the network
resources that form their system or service. Moreover, in the
middle there is plenty of room for variations. Therefore, the
underlying network layers must offer different levels of
granularity for the management of their resources, that the upper
layer operators can choose according to their needs and
objectives.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
4. Network Slicing Resource Specification
4.1. Description
Network Slicing Resource Specification (NSRS) is meant to specify the
network slicing resources and capture requirements of services,
customers, and peer networks to characterize the service expected to
be delivered by a network. These requirements include (non-
exhaustive): reachability scope (e.g., limited scope, Internet-wide),
direction, bandwidth requirements, performance metrics (e.g., one-way
delay [RFC2679], loss [RFC2680], or one-way delay variation
[RFC3393]), protection and high-availability guidelines (e.g.,
restoration in less than 50 ms, 100 ms, or 1 second), traffic
isolation constraints, and flow identification. NSRS is used by a
network provider to decide whether existing network slices can be
reused or (some of them) even combined, or if another network slice
instance is needed for a given service.
Technology-specific actions are then derived from the technology-
agnostic requirements depicted in an NSRS. Such actions include
configuration tasks and operational procedures.
A standard definition of NSRS is needed to facilitate the dynamic/
automated negotiation procedure of NSRS parameters, but also to
homogenize the processing of service requirements.
4.2. Related Work in IETF
4.2.1. NSRS Templates
As rightfully discussed in [I-D.wu-opsawg-service-model-explained],
the IETF has already published several YANG data models that are used
to model monolithic functions as well as very few services (e.g.,
L2SM, L3SM, EVPN). These models may be used in the context of
network slicing if corresponding technologies are required for a
given network slice, but none of them can be used to model an NSRS.
[RFC7297] describes the Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP) and
proposes a CPP template to capture connectivity requirements to be
met within a service delivery context . Such a generic CPP template
is meant to
o facilitate the automation of the service negotiation and
activation procedures, thus accelerating service provisioning;
o set (traffic) objectives of Traffic Engineering functions and
service management functions;
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
o improve service and network management systems with 'decision-
making' capabilities based upon negotiated/offered CPPs.
[RFC7297] may be considered as a candidate specification for NSRS.
Releasing a RFC7297-bis to take into account specific requirements
from network slicing is needed. Since [RFC7297] may not be
implemented by all providers, the [SLA-Exchange] can be used to
negotiate the SLAs and report on SLA events. Further analysis is
needed to provide a complete package.
4.2.2. Building NSRS from Protocol Independent Traffic Engineering
Models
The NSRS requirement for reachability, direction, bandwidth
requirements, performance metrics, traffic isolation constraints, and
flow identification can be built utilizing protocol which can perform
operations (read, write, notification, actions (aka rpcs)) on a yang
service layer that supports these traffic engineer and resource
definition at the service layers. The network slicing service data
model can extend existing work in the TEAS and I2RS working group for
protocol-independent topology models. These models support
configuration or the dynamic datastores defined in [NMDA] which will
be abbreviated as NMDA in this section. This section provides the
detail on how the NSRS can be built from these models and the
RESTCONF protocol.
4.2.2.1. Basic Topology Model
The basic topology model is defined in [I2RS-Yang] in the service
layer as shown in Figure 2. This topology model is protocol
independent and can be utilized as a configuration data model or a
dynamic datastores model. The configuration data model must abide by
the configuration persistence and referential requirements. The
dynamic datastores do not need to abide by the same requirements.
I2RS is defining a dynamic datastores reference model for a data
store which ephemeral. The network slices may want to use
configuration, ephemeral datastores, or define a third type of
dynamic datastores. The I2RS WG provides a place to collaborate this
work on the dynamic datastores.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
+-------------------------------+
/ [X1] "Service" /
/ / * \ TEAS /
/ / * \ /
/ / * \ /
/ [X2] * [X3] /
+----------*----------*---*-----+
* * *
* * *
+-----*-------------**----------+
/ * * "L3" /
/ * * /
/ [Y1] [Y2] /
/ * * /
/ * ** /
+-----------*------------*-*----+
* * *
* * *
+------*---------*----*---------+
/ [Z1] * [Z2] /
/ * /
/ * /
/ * /
/ [Z3] "Optical" /
+-------------------------------+
Figure 2: Topology Hierarchy (Stack) Example
4.2.2.2. TEAS Model Utilization of Basic Topology Model
The TEAS topology model [TE-Yang] provides a general description of a
Traffic engineering model that provides:
o abstract topologies with TE constraints (bandwidth, delay metrics,
links to lower layers, some traffic isolation constraints, and
some link identifiers);
o templates for links or resources;
o functionality to read, write, notification, and rpcs.
Options that need to be consider are:
Augmenting TEAS - The TEAS models provide substantial traffic
engineering. It was envisioned in the early topology model that a
service resource model would be part of the service layer. This
work was delayed until the maturation of the service requirements
from L2VPN, L3VPN, and EVPN plus the maturation of resource
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
requirements from 5G. Network slicing provides a good application
use case for this work.
Why not Augment TEAS - If the TEAS models make a fundamental
assumption that prohibits the use of the model within the network-
slicing. [Research and discussion are needed with TEAS on this
subject]
Dynamic models to combine TEAS models for network-slicing - The
network slicing controller operating across domains may wish to
create a multiple-domain data model based on the service layer
data models exposed by different providers. These service models
would not need to be configured, but only learned as providers
exchange data with one another. The rules for combining these
models could be defined as part of the dynamic datastore for
network-slicing.
Protocol within a domain - The RESTCONF and NETCONf protocol can
support read, write, notification and actions (rpcs) within a
domain.
Protocol across domains: The RESTCONF protocol currently supports
Configuration protocols and 90% of the dynamic datastores. The
RESTCONF protocol is being enhanced to support the push of
telemetry messages. The RESTCONF protocol could be used to
exchange a specific Yang network-slicing service-layer topology
(TE and Resources) and for the I2NSF security capabilities between
domains.
If a multicast of telemetry data is required between domains, then
the push model for telemetry information or the IPFIX protocol may
be utilized. [More details are needed on the multicast need]
5. Cross-Network Segment & Cross-Domain Negotiation
5.1. Description
The cross-network segment & cross-domain negotiation requirement
includes the following aspects:
o Network slice resource/functions negotiation: for example, a
tenant requests for a network slice with at most 10 ms latency
from terminal to server. Different network segments/domains
should negotiate to reach an agreement such as RAN provides at
most 2 ms service, TN domain I provides at most 4ms service, TN
domain II provides at most 2 ms service and CN provides at most 2
ms service;
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
o Configuration information negotiation: for example, for a given TN
domain, the configuration information such as VLAN ID, remote IP
address, physical port ID, etc. need to be negotiated with other
TN domains;
o Other negotiations: for example, RAN (or other access network)
needs to notify TN about the information of new attachment point
when user moves.
From terminal to server, an end-to-end network slice will involve
different network segments (e.g., RAN, TN and CN). Even within the
same network segment, there will always involve multiple domains due
to geographic isolation, administrative isolation and other reasons.
There are two ways to enable an end-to-end network slice: based on a
common platform or based on cross-network segment & cross-domain
negotiation.
If all of the involved network segments and domains belong to the
same operator or the same operator union, the common platform
solution may be work. In this case, all of the network segments and
domains only need to communicate with the common platform, and follow
the coordination management of this common platform. Whilst the most
common case is that the involved network segments and domains belong
to different operators/administrative regions, making it difficult to
realize such a common platform. Consequently, the cross-network
segment & cross-domain negotiation will be essential throughout the
whole lifecycle of an end-to-end network slice.
5.2. Related Work in IETF
There are some related works studies the inter-operation/negotiation
between different entities. This subsection will briefly review
these related work to provide a basis for the gap analysis.
5.2.1. Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach (ANIMA)
Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach (ANIMA) WG
provides a series of tools for distributed and automatic management,
which includes: Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) ,
Autonomic Networking Infrastructure (ANI), etc.
GRASP [ANIMA-GRASP] is a protocol for the negotiation between ASAs
(Autonomic Service Agent). In GRASP, ASAs could be considered as
"APPs" installed on a device. Different ASAs fulfill different
management tasks such as parameter configuration, service delivery,
etc. Based on GRASP, the same purpose ASAs that installed on
different devices are able to inter-operate and negotiate with each
other. Network slicing could make use of GRASP for the coordination
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
among devices in the underlying infrastructure layer, as well as the
negotiation among different domain (or different network segment)
managers. However, the security issue incurred by cross-network
segment & cross-domain usage should be fixed in GRASP.
ANI [ANI] is a technical packet consisting of BootStrap (for
authentication, domain certification distribution, etc.), ACP (a
separate control plane), and GRASP (for control message
coordination). ANI could be used to construct the management tunnel
among devices in underlying infrastructure layer within a single
domain. While the network slicing and cross-domain oriented
extensions are necessary.
5.2.2. Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN)
ACTN [TEAS-ACTN] is an information model proposed by TEAS WG, which
enables the multi-domain coordination in transport network. In order
to enable the network slicing in transport network, portion of
transport domain will need to be engineered. In particular about
building a TE entity and stitching service for this entity, that is
within the scope of ACTN. As an end-to-end network slicing solution,
ACTN is able to provide the cross-network segment negotiation. In
ACTN, each physical transport network domain is under the control of
a PNC as shown in Figure 3. Based on a MDSC, multiple PNCs
coordinate with each other. Although the MDSC may be a hierarchical
structure, the hierarchical MDSC still could be regarded as a logical
common platform. As Section 5.1 discussed, such common platform
solution has a strict presumption. Thus, ACTN is not a clear E2E
model. It is a multi-tier multi-service provider abstraction that
heavily relies on centralization using SDN methods.
ACTN does carry out some network slicing-related work, some proposed
concepts are even close to the concepts of today's network slicing,
like virtual network (VN, similar concept of slice instance). ACTN
enables VN based on LSP technique, different LSP tunnels correspond
to different VNs. From the isolation perspective, LSP belongs to the
soft-isolation category. For those critical services that have very
strict isolation requirement, the soft-isolation is not enough since
different VNs/network slices (i.e, LSP tunnels in ACTN) still may
compete for underlying resources.
The biggest factor that prevents ACTN from being directly applied to
network slicing is that, ACTN and network slicing have totally
different management modes. ACTN is path-oriented (i.e., TE tunnel
based), whilst network slicing is resource-oriented. Take the
scenario shown in Figure 4 as an example, there are two LSPs: LSP1
(A->C->D, 20G) and LSP2 (B->C->D, 20G). If the data-rate from node A
changes from 20G to 10G and B changes from 20G to 30G, both LSP1 and
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
LSP2 have to be reconfigured, even through path from C->D has no
change. In summary,
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| CNC-A | | CNC-B | | CNC-C |
+---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+
| | |
+-------\ |CMI /------+
\ | /
+---------+----------+
| (Hierarchical)MDSC |
+---------+----------+
/ | \
+-------+ |MPI +---------+
| | |
+---+---+ +-------+ +----+--+
| PNC | | PNC | | PNC |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 3: A Three-tier ACTN Control Hierarchy
o In-segment resource: ACTN only abstracts the topology and link
features, it neither supports standard resource capability
exposure nor facilitates distributed resource changes.
o L2 resource negotiation: ACTN does not provide the L2 resource
negotiation among devices.
o Network perspective coordination: any change in a single tunnel
requires re-computation of path on MDSC, which is expensive and
not well coordinated. I.e. there is no notion of distributed
negotiation of resources among different TE tunnels.
20G->10G +---+
---------->+ A +----+20G->10G
+---+ |
+--->+---+ 40G +---+
| C +----->+ D |
+--->+---+ +---+
20G->30G +---+ |
---------->+ B +----+20G->30G
+---+
Figure 4: An Illustration Example for Path-Oriented Management
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
5.2.3. Connectivity Provisioning Negotiation Protocol (CPNP)
[I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-protocol] defines the
Connectivity Provisioning Negotiation Protocol (CPNP) that is meant
to dynamically exchange and negotiate connectivity provisioning
parameters, and other service-specific parameters, between a Customer
and a Provider. CPNP is a tool that introduces automation in the
service negotiation and activation procedures, thus fostering the
overall service provisioning process.
CPNP runs between a Customer and a Provider carrying service orders
from the Customer and respective responses from the Provider to the
end of reaching a connectivity service provisioning agreement. As
the services offered by the Provider are well-described, by means of
the CPP template, the negotiation process is essentially a value-
settlement process, where an agreement is pursued on the values of
the commonly understood information items (service parameters)
included in the service description template.
The protocol is transparent to the content that it carries and to the
negotiation logic, at Customer and Provider sides, that manipulates
the content.
The protocol aims at facilitating the execution of the negotiation
logic by providing the required generic communication primitives.
CPNP can be used in the context of network slicing to request for
network resources together with a set of requirements that need to be
satisfied by the Provider. Such requirements are not restricted to
basic IP forwarding capabilities, but may also include a
characterization of a set of service functions that may be invoked.
5.3. Other Potential Solutions
5G Exchange (5GEx) [FGEx] is a 5G-PPP project which aims to enable
cross-domain orchestration of services over multiple administrations
or over multi-domain single administration networks. The main
infrastructure considered in 5GEx is the NFV/SDN compatible software
defined infrastructure, which limits the scope of network slicing to
SDN based architecture.
6. Guaranteed Slice Performance and Isolation
6.1. Description
With network slicing, it is expected to enable the deployment of
various services with diverse requirements independently on the
common physical networks. Each network slice is characterized with
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
particular service requirements, which usually are expressed in the
form of several key performance indicators (KPIs) such as bandwidth,
latency, jitter, packet loss, etc., and different degrees of
isolation. It should be noted that the requirement on isolation is
not just related to guaranteed performance, for some services it is
also critical to achieve the isolation in terms of network privacy,
security, management and operation, etc.
It is important that the performance and isolation requirements of
each network slice can always be met regardless of what is happening
in any other network slices. Otherwise it is likely that some of the
services would still be deployed in their dedicated networks rather
than in a shared network infrastructure using network slicing. The
requirements on guaranteed performance and isolation cannot simply be
met with the creation of separate virtual networks, more importantly
it depends on how to instantiate these virtual networks properly on
the shared physical network infrastructure with appropriate resource
allocation policy and mechanisms, so that the diversified performance
and isolation requirements of network slices can be guaranteed in a
flexible and efficient way.
6.2. Related Work in IETF
6.2.1. Virtual Private Networks
Virtual Private Networks (VPN) technologies such as L3VPN [RFC4364],
L2VPN [RFC4664], EVPN [RFC7432], etc. have been widely deployed to
provide different virtual networks on the common service provider
networks. Although VPNs can provide logically separated routing/
bridging domains between different VPN customers, essentially it is
an overlay network technology with little control of the network
resources, so it is challenging for VPN to meet the performance and
isolation requirement of some emerging application scenarios such as
industrial verticals.
6.2.2. NVO3
[NVO3-WG] defines several network encapsulations which support the
network virtualization and multi-tenancy in the data center networks.
Similar to the VPN technologies of service provider networks, NVO3 is
also an overlay network technology, which relies on the performance
characteristics provided by the IP-based underlay networks. Thus
NVO3 may not meet the performance and isolation requirements of
network slicing.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
6.2.3. RSVP-TE
RSVP-TE [RFC3209] is the signaling protocol to establish end-to-end
traffic-engineered Label Switched Paths (LSPs). It can reserve the
required link bandwidth along an end-to-end path for specific network
flows, which is suitable for services with particular requirement on
traffic bandwidth. RSVP-TE LSPs can be used as the underlay tunnels
of the VPN service connections. However, the requirement of some
emerging services is not only about traffic bandwidth, but also has
quite strict requirement on latency, jitter, etc. Such requirements
can hardly be met with existing RSVP-TE.
6.2.4. Segment Routing
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] provides the ability to specify a
traffic-engineered path by the source node of data packets, which is
also known as a approach for source routing. It can provide
comparable traffic-engineering features as RSVP-TE with better
scalability, by eliminating the per-path state in the transit network
nodes. It is therefore a candidate method of creating an NSI,
mapping a packet into an NSI and specifying the passage of the packet
through the resources dedicated to the NSI. Segment Routing as
designed today could be used within an NSI without further
modification, but its use as a method providing an NSI requires
further study. With respect to performance guarantee and isolation,
some further investigation may be needed to understand whether SR can
provide the same or better performance characteristics as RSVP-TE
without the flow state in the transit node. In addition, it is not
clear whether SR-based LSPs can provide the guaranteed latency and
jitter performance required by network slicing.
6.2.5. Deterministic Networking
[DETNET-WG] is working on the deterministic data paths over layer 2
and layer 3 network segments, such deterministic paths can provide
identified flows with extremely low packet loss rates, low packet
delay variation (jitter) and assured maximum end-to-end delivery
latency. This is accomplished by dedicating network resources such
as link bandwidth and buffer space to DetNet flows and/or classes of
DetNet flows. DetNet also aims to provide high reliability by
replicating packets along multiple paths. It is a characteristic of
DetNet that it is concerned solely with worst-case values for the
end-to-end latency.
The primary target of DetNet is real-time systems and as such
average, mean, or typical latency values are of not protected,
because they do not affect the ability of a real-time system to
perform their tasks. This contrasts with a normal priority-based
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
queuing scheme which will give better average latency to a data flow
than DetNet, but of course, the worst-case latency can be essentially
unbounded. As such DetNet seems to be a useful technique that may be
applied to either a complete NSI, or to components of the traffic
within an NSI to address the emerging low latency requirement for
real time application.
Where an NSI is created recursively, there must be a mapping between
the latency requirements of the child NSI onto the latency SLA
provided by the parent, which in turn must trace back to the SLA
provided by the underlay.
DetNet is not currently designed with network slicing in mind. As
such the mapping between an NSI and a DetNet service needs to be
defined.
6.2.6. Flexible Ethernet
[FLEXE-1.0] is initially defined by Optical Internetworking Forum
(OIF) as an interface technology which allows the complete decoupling
of the Media Access Control layer (MAC) data rates and the standard-
based Ethernet Physical layer (PHY) rates. The channelization
capability of FlexE can be used to partition a FlexE interface into
several independent sub-interfaces, which can be considered as a
useful component for the slicing of network interfaces. Currently
there is ongoing work in IETF to define the control plane framework
for FlexE, which aims to identify the routing and signaling
extensions needed for establishing FlexE-based end-to-end LSPs in IP/
MPLS networks.
7. Network Slicing-Domain Abstraction
7.1. Traditional Network Abstraction Technologies
It is important for a network slice to be isolated from other slices
and is traditionally achieved through network abstraction
technologies such as virtual private networks (VPN [RFC4364]) and
other overlays (VLANs, NVO3 [NVO3-WG]). VPNs essentially are private
networks of enterprises by connecting remote sites. It is only the
partial goal of network slice domain that determines reachability.
There are two issues with VPNs:
o An end-to-end VPN tunnel competes with other traffic in the
network and end-to-end network resource policies cannot be
guaranteed.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
o The reachability and resource reservation protocols are not
tightly integrated and often solutions require centralized PCE-P
like methods.
Network slices partition the infrastructure across multiple domains.
They may also share databases from provider or other slices (e.g.
subscriber information).
In regards to VPN or network virtualization following gaps are
identified,
o The resources allocated to a slice shall not compete with other
traffic, yet have the elasticity scale on-demand.
o New service verticals in IoT or mMTC arena are sensitive to data
plane or bits on wire overheads. Therefore, encapsulation in the
form of labels, VLANs, VxLANs shall be optional in data path (In
VPNs etc., some form of tagging is always carried).
7.2. Decoupling of Control Planes
One of the attributes of abstraction is decoupling of hardware from
software for higher flexibility and support for multiple
functionalities. In the context of slices the functionality may need
to run different control plane protocols than in other slices. As an
example, it may be just a layer 3 topology and corresponding routing
resource descriptions while another slice, may be an entirely non-IP
control plane. The notion of abstraction in slicing shall allow both
o Decoupling of control plane of physical network and a sliced
network.
o Between two slice network instances.
Although, care must be taken in the handling of this requirement as
excessive control packet processing will lead to a network node's
performance degradation and it may need to speak/enable multiple
control protocols.
7.3. Abstraction of Network in Network
To compose a slice across multiple domains, the details of network
topology of that domain shall not be exposed at the network slice
level. Furthermore,
o Inter-play of multiple technologies shall be considered and a
common representation for a slice across these domains is
required.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
To explain by example, what this means is that a segment in a network
domain can be
o A cloud deployed, NFV enabled, chain of network functions in a
virtualized 5G core.
o A segment routing [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] based IGP
network transport/aggregation or slice-specific application
functions.
o A PCE [RFC4655] monitored TE-tunnel with ingress and egress
points.
o Optical, carrier Ethernet or cellular networks.
A slice instance will be a combination of some of the above
technologies. It creates a compelling need for a common resource
centric interface across these domains over which resources can be
negotiated/allocated for end-to-end slice realization.
The network slice operator shall be able to build/visualize own
forwarding graph or service chain among these segments. Inside in
its network each segment assures resource association with the slice.
It is even more efficient to not expose those details to slice
orchestrator in order to minimize fine-grained centralized
repositories for a large scale multi-domain network.
This gap/requirement is tied to resource specification, as well as
cross-domain negotiation. Each domain, processes/negotiates the
resource spec with respect to a slice, coordinates with the
orchestrator and returns an abstract managed object to be used by
slice operator.
7.4. Forwarding/Data-plane Abstraction
A network slice data plane, may or may not follow traditional data
plane tagging/labeling. However, each network element (router/
switch) still has to classify an incoming packet and associated with
the slice instance for proper treatment. The corresponding
forwarding rules shall not have to be programmed at per flow level as
this could have adverse impact on scale of the forwarding entries in
the routers. NS resource specification shall provide a uniform
mapping for a vast set of virtual/logical network entry points from
radio, optical, wireless and fixed networks such as ports,
interfaces, labels, IP address, MAC address, wavelength lambda etc.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
7.5. Notion of QoS in Network Slices
This sub-section is not meant to argue that there is a gap in QoS
abstraction, but indicates that QoS abstraction is not required in
network slicing. End-to-end resource awareness is a key
differentiating aspect of network slicing. In traditional networks
differentiated services, QoS markings, IP precedence or FEC are used
to label a group or provide preferential packet treatment. It is
expected that a slice has already been engineered for the service
with pre-allocation of network resources. Therefore, it can be
argued that these parameters have no meaning. A packet or flow in
the network slice need not be marked and does not belong to a class.
8. Slice Identification
8.1. Description
Network slice instance identification is essential for network
element to make local decisions on forwarding policies, QoS mechanism
and etc. The performance requirements of a network slice instance
can therefore been met by making the correct decision. Meanwhile, it
is also important for OAM so that configuration and provisioning can
be delicately performed to particular network slice instances by
their identifications.
For flow identification, many existing technologies provide mature
solutions. These approaches might be able to be re-used in network
slicing by adding an additional layer of mapping to a network slice
instance ID. The network slice instance ID further maps to a group
of performance requirements and OAM profiles, based on which the
network elements within the slice can make local decisions.
8.2. Related Work in IETF
With traditional IP/MPLS VPNs, the set of Route Targets configured
for the VPN can be used as some sort of identifier of the VPN in the
control plane, and in the data plane, the VPN service labels can be
used to identify the data packets belonging to a particular VPN.
NVO3 uses the Virtual Network Identifiers (VNIs) in the header of
data packets to identify different overlay network tenants. However,
It is not clear if the existing identifiers can meet the requirements
of network slicing in terms of making local decisions on forwarding
policy, QoS and OAM mechanisms, etc.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
9. OAM Operation with Customized Granularity
9.1. Description
In accordance with [RFC6291], OAM is used to denote the following:
o Operations: refer to activities that are undertaken to keep the
network and the services it deliver up and running. It includes
monitoring the underlying resources and identifying problems.
o Administration: refer to activities to keep track of resources
within the network and how they are used.
o Maintenance: refer to activities to facilitate repairs and
upgrades. Maintenance also involves corrective and preventive
measures to make the managed network run more effectively, e.g.,
adjusting configuration and parameters.
As per [RFC6291], network slicing provisioning operations are not
considered as part of OAM. Provisioning operations are discussed in
other sections.
Maintaining automatically-provisioned slices within a network raises
the following requirements:
o Ability to run OAM activities on a provider's customized
granularity level. In other words, ability to run OAM activities
at any level of granularity that a service provider see fit. In
particular:
* An operator must be able to execute OAM tasks on a per slice
basis.
* These tasks can cover the "whole" slice within a domain or a
portion of that slice (for troubleshooting purposes, for
example).
* For example, OAM tasks can consist in tracing resources that
are bound to a given slice, tracing resources that are invoked
when forwarding a given flow bound to a given network slice,
assessing whether flow isolation characteristics are in
conformance with the NS Resource Specification, or assessing
the compliance of the allocated slice resource against flow/
customer requirements.
* An operator must be able to enable differentiated failure
detect and repair features for a specific/subset of network
slices. For example, a given slice may require fast detect and
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
repair mechanisms (e.g., as a function of the nature of the
traffic (pattern) forwarded through the NS), while others may
not be engineered with such means.
* When a given slice is shared among multiple services/customers,
an operator must be able to execute (per-slice) OAM tasks for a
particular service or customer.
o Ability to automatically discover the underlying service functions
and the slices they are involved in or they belong to.
o Ability to dynamically discover the set of network slicing that
are enabled within a network. Such dynamic discovery capability
facilitates the detection of any mismatch between the view
maintained by the control plane and the actual network
configuration. When mismatches are detected, corrective actions
must be undertaken accordingly.
9.2. Related Work in IETF
9.2.1. Overview of OAM tools
The reader may refer to [RFC7276] for an overview about available OAM
tools. These technology-specific tools can be reused in the context
of network slicing. Providers that deploy network slicing
capabilities should be able to select whatever OAM technology-
specific feature that would be address their needs. No gap that
would legitimate specific requirements has been identified so far.
9.2.2. Overlay OAM
[I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header]specifies a generic OAM header that can
be used if overlay technologies are enabled. Obviously, this effort
can be reused in the context of network slicing when overlay
techniques are in use. Nevertheless, For slice designs that do not
assume an overlay technology, OAM packets must be able to fly over
the appropriate slice and for a given service/customer. This is
possible by reusing some existing tools if and only if no specific
fields are required (e.g., carry a slice identifier as Req. 5
stated).
9.2.3. Service Function Chaining
SFC WG [SFCWG] is chartered to define SFC-specific OAM. Extensions
that will be specified by the SFC WG will be reused in the context of
network slicing. Nevertheless, The current charter of the WG does
not imply work on the automated discovery of SF instances and their
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
capabilities, nor the automatic discovery of control elements. An
additional specification effort is therefore required in this area.
10. Summary
The following table is a summary of the identified gaps based on
previous analysis in this document.
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Requirements | Gaps |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Network | 1) A detailed specification of NSRS; 2) A |
| Slicing | companion YANG data model for NSRS; 3) |
| Resource | Mechanisms/protocols for capability exposure; 4) |
| Specification | Mechanism/protocols for NS state monitoring; |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Cross-Network | 5) Mechanisms for secure cross-network segment |
| Segment & | and cross-domain negotiation/inter-operation; 6) |
| Cross-Domain | Information model for network slicing related |
| Negotiation | message exchange; 7) Mechanisms/protocols for |
| | E2E NS composition/decomposition; |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Guaranteed | 8) Mechanisms for on-demand, isolated, elastic |
| Slice | and efficient network slice instantiation and |
| Performance | resource association; |
| and Isolation | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Network | 9) Common representation mechanism for network |
| Slicing-Domain | slices across multi-domain; 10) Mechanisms for |
| Abstraction | customized network slices; |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Slice | 11) Mechanisms and framework for network slice |
| Identification | identification;12) Mechanisms for dynamic |
| | discovery of instantiated network slices; 13) |
| | Mechanisms for network slicing E2E repository; |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| OAM Operation | 14) Mechanisms for dynamic discovery of service |
| with | with function instances and their capabilities; |
| Customized | 15) Mechanisms for customized network slices OAM |
| Granularity | when overlay techniques are not in use. |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 2: Summary of Gaps
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
11. Security Considerations
This document analyzes the standardization work on network slicing in
different WGs. As no solution proposed in this document, no security
concern raised.
12. IANA Considerations
There is no IANA action required by this document.
13. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Hannu Flinck, Akbar Rahman and Ravi
Ravindran for their detailed and constructive reviews. Many thanks
to Susan Hares, Mohamed Boucadair, Christian Jacquenet and Stewart
Bryant for their valuable contributions and comments.
14. Informative References
[ANI] "A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-
reference-model/?include_text=1>.
[ANIMA-GRASP]
"A Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-
grasp/>.
[DETNET-WG]
"Deterministic Networking",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/detnet/about/ >.
[FGEx] "5G Exchange (5GEx) - Multi-domain Orchestration for
Software Defined Infrastructures",
<https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/296486303_5G_Exchange_5GEx_-_Multi-domain_Orch
estration_for_Software_Defined_Infrastructures>.
[FLEXE-1.0]
"Flexible Ethernet 1.0", <http://www.oiforum.com/wp-
content/uploads/OIF-FLEXE-01.0.pdf>.
[I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-protocol]
Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Zhang, D., and P.
Georgatsos, "Connectivity Provisioning Negotiation
Protocol (CPNP)", draft-boucadair-connectivity-
provisioning-protocol-14 (work in progress), May 2017.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
spring-segment-routing-11 (work in progress), February
2017.
[]
Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., Kumar, D., Chen, M., Yizhou, L.,
and D. Dolson, "OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks",
draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03 (work in progress),
March 2017.
[I-D.wu-opsawg-service-model-explained]
Wu, Q., LIU, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models
Explained", draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained-06
(work in progress), May 2017.
[I2RS-Yang]
"A Data Model for Network Topologies",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-
network-topo/ >.
[IMT2020-2015]
"Report on Gap Analysis", <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
T/focusgroups/imt-2020/Pages/default.aspx >.
[IMT2020-2016]
"Draft Technical Report Application of network
softwarization to IMT-2020 (O-041)",
<http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/imt-2020/Pages/
default.aspx >.
[IMT2020-2016bis]
"Draft Terms and definitions for IMT-2020 in ITU-T
(O-040)", <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/imt-
2020/Pages/default.aspx >.
[NGMN-2016]
"Description of Network Slicing Concept",
<https://www.ngmn.org/uploads/
media/160113_Network_Slicing_v1_0.pdf>.
[NGS-3GPP-2016]
"Study on Architecture for Next Generation System-latest
version v1.0.2",
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/Latest_SA2_Specs/
Latest_draft_S2_Specs >.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
[NMDA] "Network Management Datastore Architecture",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-
revised-datastores/>.
[NS-Framework]
"NS Framework", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
geng-netslices-architecture/>.
[NS-UseCase]
"NS Use Case", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
qin-netslices-use-cases/>.
[NVO3-WG] "Network Virtualization Overlays".
[ONF-2016]
"Applying SDN Architecture to 5G Slicing",
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/
Applying_SDN_Architecture_to_5G_Slicing_TR-526.pdf >.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[RFC7297] Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and N. Wang, "IP
Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)", RFC 7297,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7297, July 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7297>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[SFCWG] "\Service Function Chaining (sfc)",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sfc/about/>.
[SLA-Exchange]
"Inter-domain SLA Exchange Attribute",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sla-
exchange/>.
[TE-Yang] "YANG Data Model for TE Topologies",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-
topo/>.
[TEAS-ACTN]
"Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE
Networks (ACTN)", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model>.
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Network slicing June 2017
Authors' Addresses
Li Qiang (editor)
Huawei
Email: qiangli3@huawei.com
Pedro Martinez-Julia
NICT
Email: pedro@nict.go.jp
Liang Geng
China Mobile
Email: gengliang@chinamobile.com
Jie Dong
Huawei
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Kiran Makhijani
Huawei
Email: Kiran.Makhijani@huawei.com
Alex Galis
University College London
Email: a.galis@ucl.ac.uk
Susan Hares
Hickory Hill Consulting
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Slawomir
Orange
Email: slawomir.kuklinski@orange.com
Qiang, et al. Expires December 4, 2017 [Page 29]