Subject: [Teas] Isolation again ... but for the sevice model RE: Review of draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-09

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:19:17 +0000

Re-,

Agree this is an interesting discussion to have for the service modeling.

A Boolean may not be sufficient because isolation is not only about setting tunnels and so on but may include other features to ensure privileged and restricted access to content that belong to a slice. For example, if the slice includes flow-aware nodes, access rights to privacy-sensitive data such as mapping tables (e.g., CGN) should not be global, but specific to a slice tenant. Providing access to log history may be part of what a slice service can provide.

FWIW, RFC7297 tried to generalize these aspects under “privacy protection requirements”:

==
3.8<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7297#section-3.8>.  Traffic Isolation

   This clause indicates if the traffic issued by or destined to
   "Customer Nodes" should be isolated when crossing the IP transport
   network.  This clause can also be used to specify additional security
   protection requirements (including privacy protection requirements).

   This clause can then be translated into VPN policy provisioning
   information, such as the information pertaining to the activation of
   dedicated tunnels using IPsec, BGP/MPLS VPN facilities [RFC4364<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4364>], or
   a combination thereof.  The activation of such features should be
   consistent with the availability and performance guarantees that have
   been negotiated.
==

Cheers,
Med

De : Teas <[email-masked]> De la part de Krzysztof Szarkowicz
Envoyé : lundi 28 mars 2022 10:42
À : Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Cc : TEAS WG <[email-masked]>
Objet : Re: [Teas] Review of draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-09

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for updating -10 with some of my comments.

Please see as well inline.

Thanks,
Krzysztof
[snip]

  1.  An example to think about is how a financial institution may contract to have their traffic carried by a service provider. They might put in place very stringent SLOs (and penalties) that force the provider to use isolation. Or they might insist on isolation.
  2.  Another example to think about is government organisations that not only demand SLOs, but demand that their traffic is isolated from the traffic of the common people.

[Krzysztof] OK, so more detailed definition of ‘isolation SLE’ is out of scope for this doc. It would be interesting to see the discussion, how this SLE can be expressed by the customer, without pointing to realization (i.e., without saying ‘use dedicated links for my slice’, or ‘use dedicated lambdas in DWDM for my slice’, or ‘use dedicated queues for my slice’, ‘use dedicated VPN for my slice’, etc.). Or, it is just binary (‘isolated’, ’not isolated) SLE, living the decision to the operator, what does it mean ’isolated’ from the realization perspective (operator might say, if the SLOs are meet, it means the service is ‘isolated’, regardless what is the realization).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.