* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Timeframe IETF 99 (Prague)

Current schedule of "Important Dates" requires that all BOF proposal requests be submitted to Area Directors (ADs) by 2359 UTC Friday, 2017-06-02. The IAB and IESG will hold a joint teleconference to discuss the proposals. ADs will be expected to approve or disapprove the BOF request on that teleconference, ensuring that the Secretariat has all of the information to put the first draft of the agenda together on or before 2017-06-16.

Applications and Real-Time

General

Internet

5G IP Access and Session Management Protocols (5GIP) - not approved for IETF 99

  • Description:

The goal of this group is to standardize IP protocols for access and session management to be used in the fifth generation (5G) networks by the virtualized functions in the core network. Aim is to include equally wireless and wireline access networks and support both mobile and fixed end hosts.

Regarding access management, a framework allowing clients, i.e. end hosts and networks in a multi-access scenario to negotiate combination of uplink and downlink paths taking into account client's application needs and network conditions will be developed. To allow for mobility, the identifier locator addressing protocol which does not involve tunneling will be developed considering single/multiple prefix allocation to the end host interface as the base protocol. A simplified session management at this stage will be integrated with the mobility protocol.

The activity will keep close cooperation with groups elsewhere at IETF such as dmm, lpwan, 6lo and 6man.

The BoF gathers implementers, users and experts from academia, telecommunication and IT experts. Strong relationships with SDOs: 3GPP SA2 & SA3, BBF 5G Project Stream, ITU-T 5G Group, IEEE (OmniRAN).

The need for this work stems from:

  • Fourth generation network solutions in place for access management do not involve/consider multiple simultaneous access to wireless and wireline access network and the resulting networking experience may not meet the requirements set forward for 5G
  • Mobility management solutions involve tunneling in most cases with fixed anchors placed many hops away from the UE and not being able to cope with 5G UE mobility characteristics (e.g. very low latency)
  • Session management solutions are not designed for the upcoming 5G common core network to which all access technologies will connect and thus not allow seamless session continuity in an environment where multiple simultaneous access is expected to be used more commonly.

Future work may include the following and will be conducted on a time permitting basis and if possible after rechartering:

Access management control and data plane protocols supporting multiple access by the end host; Proxied version of the base mobility management protocol which may involve encapsulation will be developed for communication with legacy servers; A document on the use of currently defined ILA with changes/no changes for 5G IP connectivity on control plane will be developed. Address-based Identifier – locator separation may be useful as connectivity-enabler also on the control plane. Currently control plane functions may use DNS to resolve a peer’s IP address which is treated as routable address. Moving the control plane towards the cloud, virtualized network functions (vNF) may split into multiple components whose location may change, e.g. due to migration, scaling, etc. Another case is the service-based 5G system architecture to provide connectivity between control plane vNFs; as alternative to the point-to-point model. DNS may be seen as first-level resolver of a namespace into an IP address, which is treated as identifier. The service-based architecture can treat this identifier as routable or apply address-rewrite as in the currently defined ILA to enable and maintain connectivity between two vNF peers; As part of the extensions to the session management, session and service continuity will be defined to provide seamless mobility. The use case comprises 5G User Equipment (UE) which originally is attached to a 5G radio access network later moves to an area served by a Wi-Fi access point and vice versa. The Wi-Fi AP is connected to a central office within the fixed network while both access networks are served by a converged common core; 5G Internet of Things (IoT) is in scope. Addressing for large number of small IOT devices would be a challenge unless they are considered local and use IPv6 Unique Local Address (ULA) for local communication and use a gateway to access the Internet, a case for proxied version of the base protocol.

  • Agenda
    • Agenda bashing, minute takers (5 min)
    • Problem Space presentation (10 min)
    • Access Mgmt Requirements/framework overview (15 min)
    • Mobility and Session Mgmt Requirements/solution overview (15 min)
    • Charter Discussion (45 min)

Aim is to develop a set of protocols to enhance the basic connectivity (including optional mobility support) and session set up which are as much as possible abstracted from link layer technology specifics; Efficiency could be improved by reducing overhead in terms of current Inter-Working Gate-Ways (IWGWs), OVerHead (OVH) due to Tunneling and multiple encapsulation, complex mapping mechanisms etc. New concept and ecosystem shall allow for true integration and convergence of multiple heterogeneous access technologies (including their concurrent use as e.g. in multi-path) and current technology specific control plane entities; Proposed work addresses next generation system architecture of modular technology agnostic network functionalities;

GOALS and MILESTONES: Within one to two years

  • Submit a document on framework for access management with no proxies as INFO RFC.
  • Submit a document on data plane for mobility supporting unique prefix per host model as STD RFC.
  • Submit a document on control plane for mobility supporting handovers as STD RFC.

BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access (BANANA) - approved for IETF 99

Status: WG Forming
Responsible AD: Suresh Krishnan
BoF proponents: Margaret Cullen / Mingui Zhang / Nic Leymann
BoF chairs: Margaret Cullen / Brian Trammell
Number of people expected to attend: 100
Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 1.5 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): Internet area, Homenet, TRILL, MPTCP, QUIC

Description:

Bandwith Aggregation consists of splitting local traffic across multiple Internet links on a per-packet basis, including the ability to split a single flow across multiple links when necessary.

It is the goal of this WG to produce a Bandwidth Aggregation solution that will provide the following benefits:

  • Higher Per-Flow Bandwidth: Many Internet links available to homes and small offices (DSL, Cable, LTE, Satellite, etc.) have relatively low bandwidth. Users may wish to run applications (such as streaming video, or content up/downloads) that require (or could benefit from) more bandwidth for a single traffic flow than is available on any of the local links. A Bandwidth Aggregation solution could supply the needed bandwidth by splitting a single traffic flow across multiple Internet links.
  • Reduced Cost: Traffic sharing on a per-packet basis allows the full bandwidth of the lowest-cost link to be used first, only using a higher-cost link when the lowest-cost link is full.
  • Increased Reliability: When one Internet link goes down, ongoing application flows can be moved to another link, preventing service disruption.

Agenda

  • Agenda bash, scribe, minute taker [5min]
  • Review of proposed charter text (see below) [10 mins]
  • Charter discussion [45 mins]
  • Questions: [30 mins]
    • Is the charter text clear and understandable?
    • Should the IETF do this work?
    • Are you willing to contribute (write, review, email, etc.)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leymann-banana-signalling

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leymann-banana-data-encap

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leymann-banana-integration

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leymann-banana-load-rebalance

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leymann-banana-discard-timer

Proposed Charter Text and Milestones:

The BANdwidth Aggregation for Network Access (BANANA) Working Group is chartered to develop solution(s) to support dynamic path selection on a per-packet basis in networks that have more than one point of attachment to the Internet.

Bandwith Aggregation consists of splitting local traffic across multiple Internet links on a per-packet basis, including the ability to split a single flow across multiple links when necessary.

It is the goal of this WG to produce a Bandwidth Aggregation solution that will provide the following benefits:

  • Higher Per-Flow Bandwidth: Many Internet links available to homes and small offices (DSL, Cable, LTE, Satellite, etc.) have relatively low bandwidth. Users may wish to run applications (such as streaming video, or content up/downloads) that require (or could benefit from) more bandwidth for a single traffic flow than is available on any of the local links. A Bandwidth Aggregation solution could supply the needed bandwidth by splitting a single traffic flow across multiple Internet links.
  • Reduced Cost: Traffic sharing on a per-packet basis allows the full bandwidth of the lowest-cost link to be used first, only using a higher-cost link when the lowest-cost link is full.
  • Increased Reliability: When one Internet link goes down, ongoing application flows can be moved to another link, preventing service disruption.

Proposed BANANA solutions use different approaches (e.g. tunnels, proxies, etc.) to split and recombine traffic, but at an abstract level, they involve a local (hardware or software) component on the multi-access network, a remote component within the Internet, and mechanisms for those components to find each other, exchange signalling information, and direct traffic to each other. We refer to these functional components as the Local and Remote "BANANA Boxes", and we refer to the method they use to direct traffic to each other as a "BANANA Encapsulation".

The Bandwidth Aggregation solutions developed in this group will work whether the attached links are provided by a single Internet Service Provider or multiple Providers.

The BANANA WG will have the following work items:

  • Determine how Local and Remote BANANA Boxes find each other.
  • Specify a signalling protocol that can be used to send configuration and control information between BANANA boxes, including:
    • IP Prefixes of local links
    • Information about link properties & status
    • Information needed by the encapsulations
  • Select (and extend, if necessary) an existing tunneling encapsulation for sending traffic between BANANA Boxes.
  • Work with other IETF WGs defining BANANA encapsulations (if any) to ensure that the discovery mechanism and signalling protocol will meet their needs.

BANANA Boxes will determine if a specific flow is eligible for Bandwith Aggregation. If a flow is not eligible, it will not be split across multiple attached links.

For this initial charter, we will focus on how Local BANANA Boxes communicate with Remote BANANA Boxes. We will not address the topic of cooperation between multiple Local BANANA Boxes.

MILESTONES

Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft for discovery/configuration mechanism

Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft for signaling proocol

Apr 2018 Adopt WG draft for tunnel encapsulation

Feb 2019 WGLC on discovery/configuration mechanism

Feb 2019 WGLC on signaling protocol

Feb 2019 WGLC on tunnel encapsulation

Aug 2019 Send discovery/configuration mechanism to the IESG

Aug 2019 Send signalling protocl to the IESG

Aug 2019 Send tunnel encapsulation to the IESG

Operations and Management

Network Slicing (NETSLICING) - approved for IETF 99

Status: WG non-Forming
Responsible AD: Benoit Claise
Chairs: Adrian Farrel, Gonzalo Camarillo
IAB Shepherd: TBD
Expected Attendance: 150
Length of session: 2 hours
CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible: BOF session should avoid the TEAS WG, ANIMA WG, DETNET WG, SFC WG, NETCONF WG, NETMOD WG, SUPA WG, NVO3 WG, DMM WG, RTGWG, Plenary and other BoF sessions.

Scope:

  • NETSLICING Session is intended as a WG forming BoF.
  • Opportunity to hear operators, manufacturers/vendors, verticals, and other players’ viewpoints in operating Network Slicing aware infrastructure in current multi-domain access, core, edge, and transport networks..
  • Review progress so far in Network Slicing work at IETF.
  • Discuss if there is enough interest and agreement on what activities to pursue within IETF.

Description:

A Network Slice represents a logical network and it is a union of subsets of resources (connectivity, storage, computing), plus (virtual) network functions, plus service functions at the data & control & management planes at a given time, that are combined together to provide a logical networking infrastructure in support of a variety of services.

Network slicing enables the creation of multiple, parallel networks of different features by flexible isolation of allocated to a slice network resources and network functions and providing high level of customization and quality guarantee. Network slicing is an approach of flexible isolation and allocation of network resources and network functions for a network instance, providing high level of customization and quality guarantee.

Network Slices transform the networking perspective by abstracting, isolating, orchestrating, softwarizing, and separating logical network components from the underlying physical network thereby supporting the introduction of new network architectures and new service delivery.

The purpose of the Network Slicing work in IETF is to develop a set of protocols and/ or protocol extensions that enable the following operations on slices: efficient creation, activation / deactivation, composition, elasticity, coordination / orchestration, management, isolation, guaranteed SLA, OAM/Feedback mechanisms and safe and secure operations within a network environment that assumes an IP and/or MPLS-based underlay.

While there are isolated efforts being carried out in several IETF working groups (TEAS WG, ANIMA WG, DETNET WG, SFC WG, NETCONF WG, SUPA WG, NVO3 WG, DMM WG, RTGWG) to achieve key aspects and characteristics of network slice functions and operations, there is a clear need to have a full overview and look at the complete life-cycle management characteristics of Network Slicing solutions though the discussions based on the following architectural tenets:

  • Underlay tenet: support for an IP/MPLS-based underlay data plane
  • Governance tenet: a logically centralized authority for network slices in a domain.
  • Separation tenet: slices may be virtually or physically independent of each other and have a high degree of isolation from each other.
  • Capability exposure tenet: each slice allows third parties to access via dedicated protocols and /or APIs and /or programming methods information regarding services provided by the slice (e.g., connectivity information, mobility, autonomicity, etc.) within the limits set by the operator or the slice owner.

The scope of the proposed work focuses on Network Slicing approaches that adhere to these tenets.

A number key value added characteristics of Network Slicing and its usage are identified in the Problem Statement draft (draft-galis-netslices-revised-problem-statement-03) as differentiation from the non-partition network or from simply partitions of connectivity resources (e.g. VPNs)/ Virtual Networks / Other abstractions of the data traffic layer.

The proposed Network Slicing work will be coordinated with other IETF WGs to ensure that the commonalities and differences in solutions are properly considered. Where suitable protocols, models, or methods exist, they will be preferred over creating new ones.

Problem Space: The goal of this proposed work is to develop one or more protocol specifications (or extensions to existing protocols) to address specific slicing problems that are not met by the existing tool set. Twenty distinct problems have been identified (in draft-galis-netslices-revised-problem-statement-03) which are grouped as follows: Global Issues, Network Slice Capabilities, and Network Slice Operations. Each problem has an attached priority level [i.e. high (8), medium (6) and low level (6)]. The proposed WG charter would include at least the high priority problems.

A number of solutions to the identified problems would need to be developed to resolved the identified IETF gaps (see draft-qiang-netslices-gap-analysis-00) grouped as follows: Network Slicing Resource Specification, Cross-Network Segment & Cross-Domain Negotiation, Guaranteed Performance and Isolation, Network Slicing-Domain Abstraction, Slice Identification, OAM Operation with Customized Granularity.

Agenda:

  • Introduction [5 minutes]
  • 4 Network Slicing drafts presentations [4*(10 minutes + 5 minutes Q&A)]
    • Network Slicing Problem Statement – Alex Galis – University College London
    • Network Slicing Architecture - Liang Geng – China Mobile
    • Network Slicing Use Cases – Kiran Makhijani - Huawei
    • Network Slicing Gap Analysis - Li Qiang - Huawei
  • 1 Network Slicing complementary presentation + 4 Reserved presentation [1*(10 minutes + 5 minutes Q&A)]
    • How to slice Network Slicing for the IETF - Hannu Flinck – Nokia
    • (reserve) What is /is not Network Slicing - G. Grammel – Juniper, Daniele Ceccarelli - Ericsson
    • (reserve) Network Slicing in 3GPP - Xavier Defoy – Inter Digital
    • (reserve) Network Slicing usage in Operator Network – Slawomir Kuklinski – Orange
    • (reserve) Impact of NS Multiple Viewpoints and Functional Roles - Pedro Martinez-Julia – NICT Japan
  • Concluding remarks & proposed charter with priorities [10 minutes]
  • Open Discussion [60 minutes]

NETSLICING BoF Proponents in alphabetical order: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, Taesang Choi <choits@etri.re.kr>, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, Jie Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>, Hannu Flinck <hannu.flinck@nokia-bell-labs.com>, Xavier De Foy <Xavier.DeFoy@InterDigital.com>, Alex Galis <a.galis@ucl.ac.uk>, Liang Geng <gengliang@chinamobile.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Christian Jacquenet <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, Pedro Martinez-Julia <pedro@nict.go.jp>, Slawomir Kuklinski <slawomir.kuklinski@orange.com>, Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>, Kiran Makhijani <Kiran.Makhijani@huawei.com>, Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo <luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com>, Cristina Qiang <qiangli3@huawei.com>, Ravi Ravindran <ravi.ravindran@huawei.com>, Akbar Rahman, <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>, Peng Shuping <pengshuping@huawei.com>, Kevin Smith <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>, Peng Shuping <pengshuping@huawei.com>, Nurit Sprecher <nurit.sprecher@nokia.com>

Previous work and meetings:

Network Slicing drafts:

Side Meetings / Workshops [15 presentations at 2 side meetings]

  • NETSLICING workshop No. 1 at IETF97 - 5 presentations - approx 100 participants
  • NETSLICING Workshop No. 2 at IETF 98 - 12 presentations - approx 120 participants
  • Document Repository at https://github.com/netslices/IETF-NetSlices

NETSLICING Mailing list: 191 members + 271 emails (13th Jan 2017 – 2nd June 2017)

A group of 20 volunteers was set-up and acted in the period April - May 2017 to progress, coordinate and synchronise the NS drafts in support of the WG forming BoF planned at IETF99.

Routing

IDentity Enabled Networks (IDEAS) - approved for IETF 99

Status: WG-Forming Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana (aretana@cisco.com)
BoF chairs: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
IAB Shepherd: Erik Nordmark
Number of people expected to attend: 100
Number of Session:1[[BR]] Length of session: 1.5 hours
Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): RTGAREA, OPSAREA, nv03, hip, netconf, i2rs, nmrg, sfc, anima,
Special Requirement: N/A

Description:

The goal of this group is to standardize a framework that provides identity-based services that can be used by any identifier-location separation protocol. The new requirements driving this framework go beyond the traditional discovery service and mapping of identifier-to-location for packet delivery and will give the following additional benefits:

  • common control plane for all id-loc protocols
  • lifecycle management of identities associated identifiers and groupings
  • metadata support for identities and identifiers
  • enhanced security and privacy
  • enhanced access control policies for discovery
  • increased reliability of the system
  • secured access to the system
  • fast resolution

Additionally, IDEAS working group will identify gaps and make recommendations on changes needed for interface interactions between the framework and identifier-enabled protocols.

Problem space:

Identity-enabled solutions and applications are increasingly being considered to support mobility solutions and multi-homing across heterogeneous access networks. Likewise, Internet of Things (IOT), Machine-to-Machine (M2M) and 5G services, as well as context aware applications all can take advantage of discovery, stricter privacy and security functions. A common control plane is required to facilitate the dynamic discovery of the various naming/addressing schemes and the communication between these heterogeneous environments.

Agenda:

  • Admin ( 5 mins)
  • Problem statement (15 mins)
  • Use Cases (15 mins)
  • Solution Requirements overview (15)
  • Charter and deliverables Discussions Q&A (30 mins)

BoF proponents: Padma Pillay-Esnault (padma.ietf@gmail.com) David Lake (D_Lake@dell.com) Dino Farinacci (farinacci@gmail.com) Tom Herbert (tom@herbertland.com) Guiseppe Fiocolla (giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it), Christian Jacquenet(christian.jacquenet@orange.com) Axel Nennker (Axel.Nennker@telekom.de)

Links to the mailing list, draft charter if any, relevant Internet-Drafts, etc
Mailing List: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas

Relevant drafts:

-Problem Statement
-Use Cases
-Requirements
-Study

Proposed Charter and Milestones:

Proposed Charter

Milestones
Dec 2017 Adopt WG draft for the Identity Services framework
May 2018 WGLC for the Identity Services framework
August 2018 Send Identity Services framework draft to the IESG

Security

Transport

IAB Sessions