On 2/Aug/20 06:51, Ahmed elBorno wrote:

Maybe I am off topic a little bit here and i'd like to be educated if i am wrong but I think those 5G applications will move from VMs into containers/microservices when their vendors see a business case to rearchitect them, maybe its already happening as we speak.

I'm still trying to figure out what "these 5G applications" are :-).

On the other side of that coin is that product managers of these 5G apps seeing the margins on their apps diminish when they slice them to a form that allows other "orchestrators" to deploy them.

My understanding of "network slicing" is that an operator lets an MVNO ride their network (happens today already), and that MVNO can further "slice" their portion of the operators network to deliver different performance levels for the different services they offer down to the end-user. Still not sure how this will work considering a great deal of the global Internet is for services that live on the public Internet, and many specialized/private services would typically still run over fibre. I know we'd all like to see heart surgery over 5G, but something tells me if you can afford it, the hospital can afford some fibre :-). Perhaps M2M may have a use-case, but that's working reasonably well on 4G today, unless we expect to see a massive jump in performance with the marginal improvement in radio latency between device and 5G tower.

Another side is that the software engineers working on these Apps have a lot more prioritized items/things to develop (real core functions) so they will delay this transformation.

This is the crux of the issue. Mark.

On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper <https://www.infinera.com/wp-content/uploads/HR-Operator-Strategies-for-5G-Transport-July-2020_WP.pdf>, useful?

" For transport network slicing,  operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks (VPNs),  regardless of the VPN flavor. Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of respondents),  but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing  also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively.  The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard slicing technologies—  those that physically partition resources among slices.  Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences."

Well, it's what I've been saying - we have tried & tested systems and solutions that are already native to IP/MPLS networks. Why try to reinvent network virtualization when there are plenty of existing solutions in the wild for next to cheap? VLAN's. l2vpn's. l3vpn's. EVPN. DWDM. And all the rest? The whole fuss, for example, about the GRX vs. IPX all came down to 2Mbps private or public IP-based GTP tunnels vs. 100Mbps l3vpn's. Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly complicated. If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have been slicing infrastructure for yonks :-). Mark.

How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable? Djamel On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org> wrote:

I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.

If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight <https://www.keysight.com/zz/en/events/america/webinars.html?D2C=2036435&isSocialSharing=Y&partnerref=emailShareFromGateway> (warning: requires registration), then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about the QoS that the operator sells.

Cheers,

Etienne

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

...

On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper <https://www.infinera.com/wp-content/uploads/HR-Operator-Strategies-for-5G-Transport-July-2020_WP.pdf>, useful?

" For transport network slicing, operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks (VPNs), regardless of the VPN flavor. Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of respondents), but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively. The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard slicing technologies— those that physically partition resources among slices. Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences."

Well, it's what I've been saying - we have tried & tested systems and solutions that are already native to IP/MPLS networks. Why try to reinvent network virtualization when there are plenty of existing solutions in the wild for next to cheap? VLAN's. l2vpn's. l3vpn's. EVPN. DWDM. And all the rest?

The whole fuss, for example, about the GRX vs. IPX all came down to 2Mbps private or public IP-based GTP tunnels vs. 100Mbps l3vpn's.

Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly complicated.

If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have been slicing infrastructure for yonks :-).

Mark.

-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least preferred option among survey respondents. Etienne On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:53 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:

...

How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable?

So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?

Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or worse, give each service its own metal server?

Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?

Mark.

-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS" on 5G networks, in real terms.

Mark, V2X, no? Otherwise, I'm perfectly in agreement with what you've just written. Etienne On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:02 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

...

The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least preferred option among survey respondents.

That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to make commercial sense.

I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.

We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was predicted to break the Internet.

So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS" on 5G networks, in real terms.

Mark.

-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

And while the practical improvement in radio latency

between 4G and 5G is in the low single digits, how does that make V2X any more interesting with 5G than it currently is with 4G? Release 16 is just out and if it has delivered the 5G vision, latency between devices connected over the same radio interface (which I take to mean the same gNB), is now < 1 ms. Isn't that a good improvement? Again, what's the actual use-case?

I understand that this is a key enabler for driverless cars (real-time, automated vehicle navigation) - the V2I part of V2X. 5G coverage is likely going to be worse than 4G coverage for the

foreseeable future. Either grid-locked or on the open road, chances are your car is going to connecting to a 3G/4G cell tower more often than a 5G one.

Here's one blogger who agrees with you <https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/16515/349885?utm_source=brighttalk-recommend&utm_campaign=network_weekly_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=company&utm_term=312020> (@19:46) about coverage - and count me in. But, I guess, it's fair to say that this is the chicken-and-egg conundrum :) Cheers, Etienne On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:36 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

On 4/Aug/20 17:37, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

...

V2X, no?

Again, what's the actual use-case?

I've got a 4G router in my car, to which it connects via wi-fi. I can use Google Maps, I can stream music if I'm bored with commercial radio, I can download updates for the car and I can schedule service appointments with the dealership.

5G coverage is likely going to be worse than 4G coverage for the foreseeable future. Either grid-locked or on the open road, chances are your car is going to connecting to a 3G/4G cell tower more often than a 5G one.

And while the practical improvement in radio latency between 4G and 5G is in the low single digits, how does that make V2X any more interesting with 5G than it currently is with 4G?

Mark.

-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Well, I doubt the radio has any service intelligence. It's just a conduit. Depending on why two devices on the same radio have to communicate, a cleverer system deep in the core would need to process that before handing it back to the radio network.

5G introduced a number of functional units (RU, DU and CU) in the radio access network and disaggregation is flexible. Service intelligence doesn't need to come from the core; it may be far out in the edge. At the RU, there is packetized data ready for transmission over eCPRI to the DU. In this webinar <https://www.lightreading.com/webinar.asp?webinar_id=1656> (@6:07), there's a bit of a projection about use of service intelligence. Cheers, Etienne On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:21 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

On 5/Aug/20 18:34, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

Release 16 is just out and if it has delivered the 5G vision, latency between devices connected over the same radio interface (which I take to mean the same gNB), is now < 1 ms. Isn't that a good improvement?

Well, I doubt the radio has any service intelligence. It's just a conduit. Depending on why two devices on the same radio have to communicate, a cleverer system deep in the core would need to process that before handing it back to the radio network.

Of course, it makes the case for deploying services at each base station to localize services, but that could get expensive for an entire radio network, particularly within a 100km Metro where fibre latency will remain at ±1ms anyway.

Not to mention that with the exception of things like cars in a traffic jam or on the same piece of highway, the chances of two devices talking to each other over the same radio can't always be guaranteed.

I understand that this is a key enabler for driverless cars (real-time, automated vehicle navigation) - the V2I part of V2X.

I look forward to seeing this.

Here's one blogger who agrees with you <https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/16515/349885?utm_source=brighttalk-recommend&utm_campaign=network_weekly_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=company&utm_term=312020> (@19:46) about coverage - and count me in. But, I guess, it's fair to say that this is the chicken-and-egg conundrum :)

The video won't play. Could be my browser.

Anyway, time will tell. I see 5G roll-out density like rolling out fibre in places only where the postal service can get to. But I hope I'm wrong.

Mark.

-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

I can promise 100% that in LARGE US 5G carriers this is exactly what is happening. Virtual CU’s and DU’s, running on traditional virtualization platforms and in containers. An entire multi-vendor containerized 5G which replaces the 4G EPC is also in testing, and close to production deployment. The only non-virtualized devices in the RAN network would be the Radio Units (RU).

On Aug 7, 2020, at 5:15 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:



On 7/Aug/20 09:35, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

...

5G introduced a number of functional units (RU, DU and CU) in the radio access network and disaggregation is flexible. Service intelligence doesn't need to come from the core; it may be far out in the edge. At the RU, there is packetized data ready for transmission over eCPRI to the DU. In this webinar (@6:07), there's a bit of a projection about use of service intelligence.

In my old, the plan is what happens :-).

Mark.

On 7/Aug/20 09:35, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

5G introduced a number of functional units (RU, DU and CU) in the radio access network and disaggregation is flexible. Service intelligence doesn't need to come from the core; it may be far out in the edge. At the RU, there is packetized data ready for transmission over eCPRI to the DU. In this webinar <https://www.lightreading.com/webinar.asp?webinar_id=1656> (@6:07), there's a bit of a projection about use of service intelligence.

In my old age, the plan is what happens :-). Mark.

PS. All of the current attempts to turn IP statistical multiplexing into network slicing or deterministic networks are far from scale or practical deployments (IMO).

Wow, that's quite a statement (I'm not disparaging, just surprised). Etienne On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:37 PM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

...

I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.

I think we all do - except technology is not there yet. Just imagine if over a single piece of fiber you will get infinite bandwidth delivered over unlimited modulation frequency spectrum ...

IMHO till real true optical switching is a commodity we are stuck with statistical multiplexing.

But optimistically I think time will come when you will be able to setup end to end optical paths in true any to any fashion with real end to end resource guarantees. Then next generations will be looking at current routers like we look today at strowger telephone switches :)

Cheers, R.

PS. All of the current attempts to turn IP statistical multiplexing into network slicing or deterministic networks are far from scale or practical deployments (IMO).

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:18 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

...

On 4/Aug/20 16:56, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:

...

The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least preferred option among survey respondents.

That's because the very nature of DWDM, Ethernet, IP, MPLS and VM's is all about re-using the same infrastructure over and over again for it to make commercial sense.

I doubt we want to move away from those concepts.

We rely on many services today delivered over the public Internet that virtualize and still perform. Even good ol' video streaming, which was predicted to break the Internet.

So not sure what applications are driving the demand for "greater QoS" on 5G networks, in real terms.

Mark.

-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

I mean virtualization of the hardware in terms of running different router/switch/server instances/VMs/ on the same platform. Is this desirable? On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:53 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:

On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:

...

How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable?

So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?

Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or worse, give each service its own metal server?

Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?

Mark.

Mark Tinka Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:54 PM

On 4/Aug/20 16:46, Djamel Sadok wrote:

...

How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable?

So you mean dump the VLAN model and give each service its own switch?

Or do you mean use one server but give each service its own VM? Or worse, give each service its own metal server?

Wouldn't that take us back into the digital stone age :-)?

Yes that's exactly it. Instead of a VDOM (or whatever is your FW vendor slicing mechanism) give each customer a FW "instance" (VM/Containerized -if there's such a thing already) and instantiate it on demand and with resources customer requested and enforce utility billing. Rinse and repeat for any other NF customer might need on your telco cloud (fancy name for a data-canter full of compute) As simple as that -problem is that all vendors haven't quite gotten up to speed with licensing models, we need an overall Gbps throughput pool licenses not per VM/Container Gbps pool. adam

Router/switch slicing is supported but not really used much adam From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Djamel Sadok Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:47 PM To: Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable? Djamel On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org <mailto:edepa@ieee.org> > wrote: I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now. If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight <https://www.keysight.com/zz/en/events/america/webinars.html?D2C=2036435&isSocialSharing=Y&partnerref=emailShareFromGateway> (warning: requires registration), then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about the QoS that the operator sells. Cheers, Etienne On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com <mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.com> > wrote: On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote: Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper <https://www.infinera.com/wp-content/uploads/HR-Operator-Strategies-for-5G-Transport-July-2020_WP.pdf> , useful? " For transport network slicing, operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks (VPNs), regardless of the VPN flavor. Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of respondents), but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively. The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard slicing technologies— those that physically partition resources among slices. Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences." Well, it's what I've been saying - we have tried & tested systems and solutions that are already native to IP/MPLS networks. Why try to reinvent network virtualization when there are plenty of existing solutions in the wild for next to cheap? VLAN's. l2vpn's. l3vpn's. EVPN. DWDM. And all the rest? The whole fuss, for example, about the GRX vs. IPX all came down to 2Mbps private or public IP-based GTP tunnels vs. 100Mbps l3vpn's. Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly complicated. If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have been slicing infrastructure for yonks :-). Mark. -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:36 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org> wrote:

I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.

note that it's qos at many layers in the stack as well: 1) your application 'qos' on the machine(s) on which it runs 2) your application's traffic qos on the machine/vswitch/etc on which it runs 3) your application's traffic qos on the immediate network elements (in pop) 4) your application's traffic qos on the intermediary network elements (in metro) 5) your application's traffic qos on the overall transport network (ran, fiber, wired, cross-metro/etc)

If I were to base on this recent video from Keysight (warning: requires registration), then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about the QoS that the operator sells.

marketing claims are fun.

There's always someone ruffled about something. Don't give it a second thought. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Etienne-Victor Depasquale" <edepa@ieee.org> To: surfer@mauigateway.com Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 2:42:11 AM Subject: Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G? I'm sorry, I didn't realize that anyone would get ruffled. On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:38 PM Scott Weeks < surfer@mauigateway.com > wrote: --- edepa@ieee.org wrote: From: Etienne-Victor Depasquale < edepa@ieee.org > See, for example, Azhar Sayeed's (Red Hat) contribution here < https://www.lightreading.com/webinar.asp?webinar_id=1608 >@15:33. ------------------------------------------------------------ Don't send links to this list that require one to register to read the article and then say, "By registering for our site, your email will be added to our promotions list" and "Occasionally our trusted partners may want to send you information about exciting new products and services" No one's going to click on that! scott -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale