<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Router/switch slicing is supported but not really used much<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>adam<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Djamel Sadok<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:47 PM<br><b>To:</b> Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org><br><b>Cc:</b> NANOG <nanog@nanog.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Has virtualization become obsolete in 5G?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Djamel<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <<a href="mailto:edepa@ieee.org">edepa@ieee.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think that it's validation of QoS that really matters now.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If I were to base on <a href="https://www.keysight.com/zz/en/events/america/webinars.html?D2C=2036435&isSocialSharing=Y&partnerref=emailShareFromGateway" target="_blank">this recent video from Keysight</a> (warning: requires registration), <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>then it seems that there's a lot of emphasis on making grounded claims about the QoS that the operator sells.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Etienne<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Tinka <<a href="mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.com" target="_blank">mark.tinka@seacom.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On 3/Aug/20 08:40, Etienne-Victor Depasquale wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>Is the following extract from <a href="https://www.infinera.com/wp-content/uploads/HR-Operator-Strategies-for-5G-Transport-July-2020_WP.pdf" target="_blank">this Heavy Reading white paper</a>, useful? <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>" For transport network slicing, <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>operators strongly prefer soft slicing with virtual private networks (VPNs), <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>regardless of the VPN flavor.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ranking at the top of the list was Layer 3 VPNs (selected by 66% of respondents), <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>but Layer 2 VPNs, Ethernet VPNs (EVPNs), and segment routing <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>also ranked highly at 47%, 46%, and 46%, respectively. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The point is underscored by the low preferences among all of the hard slicing technologies— <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>those that physically partition resources among slices. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hard slicing options formed the bottom tier among preferences."<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>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?<br><br>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.<br><br>Mobile operators know how to make everyday protocols seem overly complicated.<br><br>If we go by their nomenclature, the simple operators on this list have been slicing infrastructure for yonks :-).<br><br>Mark.<o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:#888888'>Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale<br>Assistant Lecturer<br>Department of Communications & Computer Engineering<br>Faculty of Information & Communication Technology<br>University of Malta</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Web. <a href="https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale" target="_blank">https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>