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
                                                                A. Galis
                                               University College London
                                                                S. Hares
                                                 Hickory Hill Consulting
                                                            S. Kuklinski
                                                            June 2, 2017

                    Gap Analysis for Network Slicing


   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

   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
   ( 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

   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

   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

   o  TN domain: transmission network domain

   o  NSI: network slice instance

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   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"

   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

   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

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

   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.  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  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

      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

      Protocol within a domain - The RESTCONF and NETCONf protocol can
      support read, write, notification and actions (rpcs) within a

      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

      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

   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

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

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

   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

   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

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

   o  A PCE [RFC4655] monitored TE-tunnel with ingress and egress

   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

      *  An operator must be able to execute OAM tasks on a per slice

      *  These tasks can cover the "whole" slice within a domain or a
         portion of that slice (for troubleshooting purposes, for

      *  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

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",

              "A Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)",

              "Deterministic Networking",
              < >.

   [FGEx]     "5G Exchange (5GEx) - Multi-domain Orchestration for
              Software Defined Infrastructures",

              "Flexible Ethernet 1.0", <

              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

              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
              and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
              spring-segment-routing-11 (work in progress), February

              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.

              Wu, Q., LIU, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models
              Explained", draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained-06
              (work in progress), May 2017.

              "A Data Model for Network Topologies",
              network-topo/ >.

              "Report on Gap Analysis", <
              T/focusgroups/imt-2020/Pages/default.aspx >.

              "Draft Technical Report Application of network
              softwarization to IMT-2020 (O-041)",
              default.aspx >.

              "Draft Terms and definitions for IMT-2020 in ITU-T
              (O-040)", <
              2020/Pages/default.aspx >.

              "Description of Network Slicing Concept",

              "Study on Architecture for Next Generation System-latest
              version v1.0.2",
              Latest_draft_S2_Specs >.

Qiang, et al.           Expires December 4, 2017               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft               Network slicing                   June 2017

   [NMDA]     "Network Management Datastore Architecture",

              "NS Framework", <

              "NS Use Case", <

   [NVO3-WG]  "Network Virtualization Overlays".

              "Applying SDN Architecture to 5G Slicing",
              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, <>.

   [RFC2680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,

   [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,

   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <>.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,

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,

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,

   [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,

   [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,

   [RFC7297]  Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and N. Wang, "IP
              Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)", RFC 7297,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7297, July 2014,

   [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, <>.

   [SFCWG]    "\Service Function Chaining (sfc)",

              "Inter-domain SLA Exchange Attribute",

   [TE-Yang]  "YANG Data Model for TE Topologies",

              "Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE
              Networks (ACTN)", <

Qiang, et al.           Expires December 4, 2017               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft               Network slicing                   June 2017

Authors' Addresses

   Li Qiang (editor)


   Pedro Martinez-Julia


   Liang Geng
   China Mobile


   Jie Dong


   Kiran Makhijani


   Alex Galis
   University College London


   Susan Hares
   Hickory Hill Consulting




Qiang, et al.           Expires December 4, 2017               [Page 29]