See, for example, Azhar Sayeed's (Red Hat) contribution here
<https://www.lightreading.com/webinar.asp?webinar_id=1608>@15:33.
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.
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.
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.
However, some CSPs are doing well putting a wrapper/UX around Mobility (e.g: Twilio)
Cheers
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that anyone would get ruffled.
There’s always someone ruffled about something. Don’t give it a second thought.
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.
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.
Is the following extract from this Heavy Reading white paper, 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."
Etienne
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.
I think that it’s validation of QoS that really matters now.
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.
Cheers,
Etienne
How about hardware slicing support? such as switch, server and router slicing? is this supported/desirable?
Djamel
Well, selling QoS is great, but does it actually help the customer in the end. One of the biggest draws to l3vpn’s back in the day was that they provided “awesome QoS”. What untrained customers thought was excellent QoS, is what we engineers knew as RSVP-TE. To the untrained eye, bandwidth reservation = excellent QoS. What the customer’s weren’t always told was that when it all hits the fan, even your PQ traffic may not be guaranteed final delivery on a 200% congested port due to a neighboring outage. And that’s the traffic the customer is paying top-dollar for, not to get dropped, ever, hehe. It’s just like the fuss I always faced when landing at SFO… from point of embarkation, transit and in the cabin, Business or First class service done right. Arrive SFO; no Priority lane; after traveling for nearly 30hrs. Not being an American, I can’t use Global Entry. Not sure if that has since changed, but that’s real-world QoS for you :-)… So in a world where the majority of Internet traffic lives on a public Internet which you can’t QoS end-to-end, what will network slicing deliver in real, QoS terms? For me, 5G QoS would be great if it had something to do with priority or discriminated access from the device to the radio (first mile). But I’m not exactly sure how to practically do that. QoS applied AFTER the packets leave the radio network and hit the fibre backbone may not necessarily create real value if the application is normal Internet access. If the 5G operator is using the same backbone to carry voice and data, then yes, QoS can help to ensure they don’t drop any VoIP calls. But then that is already included in the price I pay for making a phone call, and can’t (or shouldn’t) be sold extra to me :-). So again, not sure what QoS a 5G operator is going to sell to a 5G end-user (single or large scale). Mark.
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.
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.
The survey I pointed to suggests that hard slicing is the least preferred option among survey respondents.
Etienne
I mean virtualization of the hardware in terms of running different router/switch/server instances/VMs/ on the same platform. Is this desirable?
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.
So you mean like multiple VM's, on the same server, each representing an
NFV-based router/switch/firewall/EPC, for example?
Mark.
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
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).
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