sensors

Article
On the Rollout of Network Slicing in Carrier Networks:
A Technology Radar
Jose Ordonez-Lucena 1, *, Pablo Ameigeiras 2 , Luis M. Contreras 1 , Jesús Folgueira 1 and Diego R. López 1

1 CTIO Unit, Telefónica I+D, 28050 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (L.M.C.);

[email protected] (J.F.); [email protected] (D.R.L.)
2 Department of Signal Theory, Telematics and Communications, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Network slicing is a powerful paradigm for network operators to support use cases with
widely diverse requirements atop a common infrastructure. As 5G standards are completed, and
commercial solutions mature, operators need to start thinking about how to integrate network slicing
capabilities in their assets, so that customer-facing solutions can be made available in their portfolio.
This integration is, however, not an easy task, due to the heterogeneity of assets that typically exist
in carrier networks. In this regard, 5G commercial networks may consist of a number of domains,
each with a different technological pace, and built out of products from multiple vendors, including
legacy network devices and functions. These multi-technology, multi-vendor and brownfield features



constitute a challenge for the operator, which is required to deploy and operate slices across all these


domains in order to satisfy the end-to-end nature of the services hosted by these slices. In this context,
Citation: Ordonez-Lucena, J.;
the only realistic option for operators is to introduce slicing capabilities progressively, following a
Ameigeiras, P.; Contreras, L.M.;
phased approach in their roll-out. The purpose of this paper is to precisely help designing this kind
Folgueira, J.; López, D.R. On the
of plan, by means of a technology radar. The radar identifies a set of solutions enabling network
Rollout of Network Slicing in Carrier
Networks: A Technology Radar.
slicing on the individual domains, and classifies these solutions into four rings, each corresponding
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094. https:// to a different timeline: (i) as-is ring, covering today’s slicing solutions; (ii) deploy ring, corresponding
doi.org/10.3390/s21238094 to solutions available in the short term; (iii) test ring, considering medium-term solutions; and
(iv) explore ring, with solutions expected in the long run. This classification is done based on the
Academic Editors: Cristina technical availability of the solutions, together with the foreseen market demands. The value of this
Cervelló-Pastor, Francisco Valera, radar lies in its ability to provide a complete view of the slicing landscape with one single snapshot,
Jorge Navarro Ortiz and by linking solutions to information that operators may use for decision making in their individual
Jasone Astorga go-to-market strategies.

Received: 28 October 2021

Keywords: end-to-end network slicing; 5G; smart networks and services; multi-domain orchestration;
Accepted: 27 November 2021
technology radar; roll-out plan
Published: 3 December 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. Over recent years, the telco industry has actively focused on the exploration of tech-
nologies to accelerate the roll-out of fifth generation (5G) systems worldwide. Unlike
4G, mainly focused on providing mobile broadband services to end users, 5G has been
designed from its inception to help boost the digital transformation of vertical industries
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
(i.e., industry sectors aiming at becoming fully digital, such as manufacturing, smart cities,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
transportation or agriculture [1]). The direct involvement of the so-called verticals and
This article is an open access article
their specific needs within the 5G technology ecosystem implies the emergence of a new
distributed under the terms and wave of use cases, with very different requirements in terms of performance (e.g., through-
conditions of the Creative Commons put, latency and reliability) and functionality (e.g., mobility, security, service continuity
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// support), some of them very stringent.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ To satisfy these different (and potentially conflicting) requirements in a cost-effective
4.0/). manner, operators need to turn their networks into programmable multi-service platforms,

Sensors 2021, 21, 8094. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21238094 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 2 of 52

embracing the infrastructure and functional sharing mechanisms commonly referred to as

network slicing. With network slicing, the operator’s network can be logically split into
a set of programmable network partitions (i.e., network slices), each designed to satisfy
a particular set of service requirements. The service-tailored logical networks resulting
from this partitioning can be executed in parallel, but need to be operated in isolation from
each other. This means that despite running on a common (shared) network infrastructure,
network slices require separate (independent) management [2].
The technology foundations for slicing are already here. On the one hand, network
functions virtualization (NFV) allows deploying the functions of every slice with necessary
capacity where and when required. On the other hand, software defined networking (SDN)
allows operators to programmatically steer traffic within the slice, across the deployed
functions. In addition to these dynamic control means, NFV and SDN technologies also
provide the ability to resize and move workloads at operation time, in such a way that the
service requirements can be always met, regardless of network conditions, e.g., a faulty
node or traffic load surges. However, to fully exploit the benefits that network slicing brings,
it is important for the operator to apply the dynamic allocation and tailored partitioning
of resources at all segments, from the radio access to the data network, including all the
network domains in between. This means that the slice concept shall span the entire
operator’s managed network infrastructure, resulting in the provisioning and operation of
end-to-end (E2E) network slices.
The E2E nature of slicing forces operators to keep consistency in the behaviour of
individual slices along the different domains. This may bring significant operational
challenges in commercial networks, as outlined below:
• Slicing readiness varies across the different domains. In fact, the degree of pene-
tration of slicing features in the different technology domains is not the same. For
example, while the core network has incorporated network slicing support since the
first 5G release (3GPP Release 15), the transport network does not support any native
slicing feature yet, and first solutions have only recently been integrated into the radio
access network. The main reason why the maturity level varies across technology
domains (and their corresponding management domains) is mainly due to the exist-
ing fragmentation in the standardization arena, with a high number of participating
Standard Development Organizations (SDOs). In the current landscape, each SDO
addresses a portion of the E2E problem, developing slicing specifications for this
portion under assumptions that do not necessarily match the assumptions made by
other standard bodies, which typically address other portions. A clear example of this
mismatching can be observed on the priorities that different SDOs set in relation to
which slicing features need to be worked out in each release. In fact, these priorities
are quite different across SDOs, both in time and scope.
• Scalability burdens. The higher the number of slices running in parallel, the heavier
the burden on the operator’s OSS (Operations Support System) in terms of scalability.
In fact, having a high number of instantiated tiny network slices, each requiring
separate control and management, may well imply a strong impact on OSS functions
(orchestration, assurance, etc.). This requires the operator to find the right balance
in the slice design and activation patterns, looking to minimize this impact while
properly addressing service demands. The introduction of advanced configuration
and automation capabilities in OSS assets is also a must, in order to reduce the number
of touches, especially in the assurance phase.
• Multi-provider solutions. Upcoming 5G commercial networks are to be built out of
solutions from multiple technology providers. The reason for this approach is essen-
tially related to the dangerous effect of monoculture. Single-vendor dependency is a
killer for innovation, as it restricts open collaboration from the broader 5G ecosystem
of companies developing new technology, use cases, and services that the market
expects. In this multi-vendor ecosystem, the challenge for operators will be in the
appropriate combination of pieces from different providers and in ensuring they work
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 3 of 52

together, within and across domains. The high integration efforts on the operator
side to achieve multi-provider interoperability can be partially relieved by selecting
solutions which are standards-compliant, i.e., based on the use of open interfaces.
• Brownfield environments. Carrier networks are formed of already available equip-
ment and functions (legacy is the common term for them), aimed at offering services
from previous generations and even former releases of the current one. The need
to keep this legacy up and running shall be combined with the introduction of the
slicing functionality, avoiding the creation of silos. Unlike greenfield environments
(e.g., private 5G networks), where network slicing can be easily launched as soon as
commercial products are available, in carrier networks the operator needs to carefully
upgrade its assets in such a way that the the legacy and slicing features can coexist.
This process needs to be conducted in a cost-efficient way, ensuring that the upfront
CAPEX behind every required upgrade will be compensated with a large mass of
customers willing to consume the added slicing features.
The above challenges outline the main issues that operators need to work out to fulfill
the promise of E2E network slicing, in 5G and beyond. However, solving these issues
towards this ultimate goal may require years, specially for the first issue (i.e., the different
slicing readiness across the different domains). In the meantime, operators need to look
for workarounds to start commercializing and monetizing network slicing, incorporating
solutions in their portfolio according to the set of slicing capabilities available in their
networks by then. The population of the portfolio is not an easy task, given the quite
fragmented landscape in standards and literature, with plenty of ad-hoc solutions that
cover particular slicing aspects from different domains and under different assumptions.
Defining a network slicing rollout plan based on the current collection of solutions is a
critical activity for operators to succeed in the market. This activity consists of two steps.
First, identifying all relevant solutions and positioning them in a common space, with
multiple dimensions that reflect the E2E conception of network slicing. Secondly, defining
a go-to-market strategy [3], based on deciding which solutions will be made available,
when, for which customers, and under which business models.
The purpose of this paper is to address the first step, outlining a technology radar to
model this common space. This radar presents a phased-based vision for the introduction of
network slicing capabilities in commercial networks, considering all the domains impacted
in operator assets, including the main three technology domains and the OSS. In this vision,
the radar identifies different solutions for network slicing and captures them into four
rings, each corresponding to a different timeline: as-is ring (today’s slicing), deploy ring
(short-term slicing), test ring (medium-term slicing) and explore ring (long-term slicing).
The position of each solution in the radar is done according to three different criteria: (i) the
technology maturity of the solution, which is related to the readiness of the corresponding
standards; (ii) the roadmap of commercial products, which specifies when the features
associated with the solution will be available; and (iii) the relevance for the customers,
which determines the prioritization of the solution over others.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work in the literature that provides a
radar for E2E network slicing, with a focus on the rollout of this technology in carrier net-
works. The radar captures a complete landscape of network slicing solutions, linking them
to different timelines. In addition to this timing, the radar will also outline the dimensions
impacting slice realization, from E2E viewpoint. These dimensions are to be analyzed in
each of the operator managed domains, including Radio Access Network (RAN), Core
Network (CN), Transport Network (TN) and OSS. In the RAN domain, network solutions
are to be discussed based on three dimensions: functionality (e.g., disaggregation and
O-RAN integration), radio resource allocation and penetration (in micro and macro cells).
The CN domain will focus on how to use and combine core network functions for different
slices, including baseline and value-added functions, depending on isolation and customer
requirements. In the TN domain, slicing is to be discussed based on the availability of
transport technologies and SDN-enabled capabilities, including programmability and au-
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 4 of 52

tomation. Finally, in the OSS domain, aspects related to network slice lifecycle management
and capability exposure (i.e., to expose slicing capabilities to customers through service
APIs) will be taken into account. These dimensions are used to characterize the different
solutions captured in the radar, providing guidance on how and where using them. This
information, together with the timeline provided for these solutions, is the input material
that enables an operator to define the plan for network slicing rollout. For further details
on how to design and execute this plan, see recommendations reported in [4–6].
This article is structured as follows. Section 2 provides the technical background of
E2E network slicing, with focus on the modelling, system architecture and deployment
related aspects. Section 3 outlines the impact that the network slicing may introduce on the
different technology domains. The understanding of these features will enable the reader
to understand the radar, which is introduced in Section 4. The radar is the core contribution
of this article, and hence deserves a detailed discussion, with a thorough analysis of all the
solutions along the different dimensions: CN (Section 5), RAN (Section 6), TN (Section 7)
and OSS (Section 8). Finally, Section 9 summarizes the main conclusions of this work.

2. Network Slicing: Concept, System Architecture and Deployment

This section provides a technical background of network slicing, outlining the main
artifacts involved in their realization.

2.1. Network Slice Concept

A network slice provides a service-tailored connectivity pipe to one or more service
applications hosted by the Data Network (DN). Examples of service applications include
Immersive Reality (XR) streamers, IoT platforms or V2X backend servers. These appli-
cations can be associated with operator services (e.g., communication services) or with
third party services. Devices subscribed to one service can establish communication with
the service applications through the corresponding network slice, which will provide an
enhanced connectivity profile in terms of functionality, performance and/or security [2].
The fact that makes network slicing an E2E concept is that the device-to-application
connectivity pipe involves all the technical domains within the operator’s managed net-
work, including the RAN, CN and TN domains.
The RAN domain allows connecting the end devices to the operator’s network using
a wide variety of access technologies. In this paper, we focus on the Next Generation RAN
(NG-RAN) [7,8]. The NG-RAN consists of multiple gNBs, which provide connectivity
towards end devices using 5G New Radio (NR) technology. To take advantage of the
benefits that RAN virtualization brings in terms of scalability and centralization, the
standards have moved to a new architecture model where a gNB can be logically split into
three entities denoted as radio unit (RU), distributed unit (DU) and centralized unit (CU).
The NR protocol functions that correspond to each of these entities are determined by the
so-called split options. Though there exist up to eight split options available for this gNB
decomposition, after a thorough analysis the industry has opted for two: split 2, defined by
the 3GPP and acting as a high layer split; and split 7-2x, defined by the O-RAN Alliance
and acting as a low layer split [9]. The figure in Section 2.2 details the partitioning of NR
protocol functions into RU, DU and CU, according to these two split options.
The CN domain allows end devices to send/receive mobile traffic to/from DN hosted
applications or the Internet. In 5G, this functionality is provided by the 5G Core (5GC) [10].
Designed from its inception to be cloud-native, the 5GC follows a service based architecture
(SBA), with the definition of a disaggregated and modular, containerized control plane
which is fully decoupled from User Plane Functions (UPFs).
Finally, the TN domain is in charge of providing infrastructure connectivity between
the RU (the entry point to the network for the device) and the DN (where the service
applications are hosted). To that end, it makes use of a wide variety of forwarding de-
vices, which are founded on different technologies (e.g., IP/MPLS, optical/DWDM and
microwave/backhaul) and connected forming different topologies (e.g., ring, mesh, hub-
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 5 of 52

and-spoke), across different aggregation levels. The TN domain sets up the data path across
the different RAN and CN functions, by mapping their interfaces into Wide Area Network
(WAN) infrastructure resources. According to this mapping, different TN segments can
be outlined:
• Fronthaul segment, scoping the data path between the RU and the DU. This data path
implements the O-RAN fronthaul interface (split 7-2x).The control, data, management
and synchronization planes of this interface are defined in [11,12].
• Midhaul segment, which sets up the data path between the DU and the CU. This data
path implements the 3GPP F1 interface (split 2) [13].
• Backhaul segment, established between the CU and the UPF. It covers two 3GPP
interfaces: N3 (CU-to-UPF) and N9 interface (UPF-to-UPF). When the UPF connected
to the CU is the anchor UPF, then the N9 interface is not needed [10].
• DN segment, establishing connectivity between the (anchor) UPF [10] and the DN.
This segment is the transport level realization of the 3GPP N6 interface [14].
To make slicing a reality, every technical domain is split into one or more logical
network partitions, each referred to as a network slice subnet. The definition of multiple
slice subnets on a single domain allows this segment to provide differentiated behaviors, in
terms of functionality and/or performance. The stitching of slice subnets across the RAN,
CN and TN results in the definition of network slices.
The rules for the definition of network slice subnets and their composition into network
slices are detailed in the 5G Network Resource Model (NRM), specifically in the Network
Slice NRM fragment [15]. This fragment captures the information model of 5G network
slicing. As seen in Figure 1, this model specifies the relationships across the manageable
entities, each represented as a separate Information Object Class (IOC). An IOC captures the
semantics and attributes of a manageable entity; in other words, it defines the class based
on which instances (objects) from this entity can be created. In the model, we have four
different IOCs: (i) NetworkSlice IOC, representing a network slice; (ii) NetworkSliceSubnet
IOC, associated with a network slice subnet; (iii) ManagedFunction IOC, which represents a
5G network function; and (iv) EP_Transport IOC, which represents an interface associated
with transport level information, e.g., transport address, reachability information, and
QoS profiles. Note that for NetworkSlice and NetworkSliceSubnet IOCs, two additional
constructions are defined:

Figure 1. 3GPP Information Model of a network slice: the Network Slice NRM fragment.

• ServiceProfile: represents the requirements that the slice needs to support for a partic-
ular service. The 1:N relationship of this construction with the NetworkSlice IOC is
because one network slice can host multiple services, as long as they do not impose
conflicting requirements. These services can be from the same customer (the slice
is dedicated for this customer) or different customers (the slice is used for serving
multiple customers).
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 6 of 52

• SliceProfile: similar to the ServiceProfile, but applied to the slice subnet level.
Though multiple associations can be found across these IOCs, the most typical case
consists in having one slice consisting of two slice subnets: one including NG-RAN func-
tions (RAN slice subnet) and the other 5GC functions (CN slice subnet). Each network slice
subnet can be deployed as an ETSI network service (via the NetworkService class), provided
that one of the network functions is realized as a Virtualized Network Function (VNF) [16].
Finally, the EP_Transport IOC features the TN slicing behavior across the RAN and CN
slice subnets, by mapping the QoS requirements associated to the different interfaces (e.g.,
F1, N3, N6, etc.) into appropriate WAN resources.

2.2. Architectural Framework for Network Slicing

Figure 2 illustrates the system architecture design for network slicing. This system is
structured into two layers: the network layer, which provides the individual slices with the
required user and control plane functionality, across all technical domains; and the OSS
layer, which hosts all the assets that are used for the design, provisioning and operation of
network slices.
TMF 641/653/…
BSS

Data Management CM FM PM Orchestration Assurance

TMF 638/639 Feasibility Check Decision Insights
3GPP TS 28.541 E2E Mgmt Domain (includes CSMF+NSMF)
Service Quality

AI models &
engine

traning
Mgmt

OSS layer
Catalogues Inventory 3GPP TS 28.5xx [31/32/45/50]
(predictive &
impact analysis)
Onboarding 3GPP TS 28.5xx ETSI NFV 3GPP TS 28.5xx
[31/32/45/50] IETF TEAS [31/32/45/50]
SOL005
Data aggregation
Descriptors (NST/NSST, NSD,..) CM FM PM CM FM PM CM FM PM CM FM PM
Events (alarms, metrics, trace..)
Capacity CI/CD/CT RAN Mgmt Domain NFV Mgmt Domain TN Mgmt Domain CN Mgmt Domain feed
planning tools tools (includes RAN-NSSMF) (NFVO+VIM/CISM) (Transport SDN fabric) (includes CN-NSSMF) Telemetry Discovery
Design

CU-CP PCF UDM AUSF NWDAF

vEMS
RRC NEF
AMF NRF NSSF

Network layer
RU DU CU-UP SMF DN
mIoT slice PDCP/SDAP
UPF (mIoT
service apps)

CU-UP SMF DN
High PHY
Low Phy

(eMBB
MAC

eMBB slice UPF

RLC
RF

PDCP/SDAP service apps)

CU-UP UPF SMF PCF DN

UPF
(PSA) (uRLLC
PDCP/SDAP
uRLLC slice service apps)

Fronthaul Midhaul (split 2, Backhaul (N3 interface) DN segment (N6 interface)

(split 7-2x) F1 interface)

Figure 2. Network slicing system architecture.

The network layer is formed of a collection of modular network functions that can be
flexibly combined together to build up network slices. Figure 2 shows an example with
three different slices, one for each main 5G service category. The fact that every slice needs
to be provisioned with a service-tailored user and control planes justifies the allocation
of dedicated NR and 5GC network functions in their RAN and CN slice subnets. Which
network functions are to be dedicated per slice and which ones can be shared with other
slices needs to be analyzed case by case, as it depends (i) on the isolation requirements
of the slice under consideration, and (ii) the type of customer that will consume this slice.
Further discussion on this topic is captured in Sections 5.1 and 6.1.
The OSS layer conveys all the Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
tools that operators may use to manage the different slices across their entire lifetime [17].
These tools are classified into four main groups, depending on their scoped functionality:
(i) design, (ii) data management, (iii) assurance and (iv) orchestration. The most notable
group is the orchestration, responsible for all the activities related to slice provisioning
(i.e., going from a service order to a deployed network slice) and slice operation (i.e., keep
the deployed slice at the desired state at run-time). This collection of activities shall be
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 7 of 52

performed consistently across all the technical domains, with an E2E perspective. The
specificities of these domains, each with a different pace of technological evolution and
with legacy from multiple vendors, unveils non-negligible integration issues for operators.
This is exacerbated as the number of slices running in parallel increases.
To cope with the above integration and scalability challenges, operators are required to
adopt novel architecture approaches on the orchestration group. Service-based paradigm,
which is about designing software architectures using Application Programming Interfaces
(APIs) based on web-based technology, is considered as a potential facilitator in this respect.
Originally conceived for 5GC, this architectural style can also be applied to the OSS layer,
resulting in a Service-Based Management Architecture (SBMA). The SBMA consists of
replacing traditional management entities (e.g., Network Managers) with a federated
set of management functions that provide services to each other using REST APIs. The
adoption of SBMA allows fleeing from point-to-point protocol interfaces (e.g., 3GPP Itf-N
interfaces) to a service bus that interconnects all the management functions and polices
the interactions across them. Different SDOs have already captured the benefits of having
a SBMA in their architecture specifications. For example, 3GPP SA5 [18] and ETSI ISG
ZSM [19] have defined their architectural frameworks based on SBMA. Even ETSI ISG NFV,
which originally chose an interface-centric approach for the design of the Management and
Orchestration (MANO) framework, has now decided to migrate towards a SBMA from
NFV Release FOUR on wards [20].
As seen in Figure 2, the management functions building up the OSS’s orchestration
group are arranged into five separate domains: RAN, NFV, TN, CN and E2E management
domains. This design criterion represents a separation of concerns that is reasonable from
the operator’s viewpoint, and which relies on two principles:
• The independent management of network resources and functions from different
technical domains. This facilitates a decoupled evolution of RAN, CN and TN, and
allows the operator to select the technologies and vendor solutions they want for
every technical domain.
• A clear separation between management (i.e., OAM activities on individual technical
domains) and orchestration (i.e., coordination and conflict resolution activities across
technical domains). In the proposed solutions, the RAN, CN and TN management
domains are focused on management activities, while the NFV and E2E management
domains are the ones responsible for orchestration.
The interactions across the different management domains are done with a service
bus, which features the ZSM cross-domain integration fabric [19]. As seen, it is important
for the different domains to make capabilities available for external consumption through
standard APIs. Figure 2 captures relevant references for these APIs.

2.3. Network Slice Description

One of the main business cases for network slicing is Network Slice as a Service
(NSaaS) [17]. In this business model, an industry vertical (acting as the network slice
customer) requests the network operator (acting as the network slice provider) to allocate
a dedicated network slice satisfying a particular set of service requirements. With a
large variety of emerging verticals in the market, it is fundamental for the operator to
define a unified ability to interpret service requirements from different verticals, and to
represent them in a common language. This unification will help the operator capture
vertical-specific service requirements and translate them into appropriate network slice
provisioning actions.
In this regard, the GSM Alliance (GSMA) has promoted the idea of having a universal
slice blueprint providing a point of convergence between telco and vertical industries
on network slicing understanding. This blueprint, known as the Generic network Slice
Template (GST) [21], contains a set of attributes that allow the characterization of any
network slice. The most representative GST attributes are included in Table 1.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 8 of 52

Table 1. Examples of NESTs for the three slices represented in Figure 2.

Network Domain
GST Attribute mIoT NEST eMBB NEST uRLLC NEST
RAN TN CN
Availability X X X 99.9 99.99 99.9999
Session and Service Continuity SSC Mode 1: the IP address SSC Mode 1: the IP address SSC Mode 1: the IP address
X
(SSC) support is preserved is preserved is preserved
Maximum DL (UL) throughput
X X 2 (4) Mbps 200 (200) Mbps 40 (40) Mbps
per UE
DL (UL) throughput per slice X X X Maximum: 30 (60) Gbps Guaranteed: 300 (200) Gbps Maximum: 20 (20) Gbps
Maximum number of PDU
X 500,000 80,000 1500
sessions
Slice Quality of Service (QoS) X X X 3GPP 5QI: 9 3GPP 5QI: 1,2,5,6,7,8,9 3GPP 5QI: 82
Maximum supported packet size X X X 300 bytes 1500 bytes 160 bytes
UE density (per km2 ) X X 100,000 500 80
Can be used simultaneously Can be used simultaneously Cannot be used simultaneously
Simultaneous use of the slice X X X with any slices with same SD with any slices with same SST with any another slice
value but different SST value value but different SD values
Supported device velocity X X 10 km/h-Pedestrian 500 km/h-High speed vehicular 120 km/h-Vehicular
NOTE 1: Slice QoS parameters attribute defines all the QoS relevant parameters supported by the network slice, including priority level, packet delay budget (i.e., maximum allowed latency), packet error rate,
jitter and maximum packet loss rate. These attributes are indexed using a 3GPP defined scalar called 5G Quality Indicator (5QI). For further details on 5QIs, see [10]. NOTE 2: The maximum number of PDU
sessions attribute describes the maximum number of concurrent PDU sessions supported by the network slice. To enforce this quota on the slice, the 5GC network function called Network Slice Access Control
Function (NSCAF) is required. For further information of this function, see Section 5.2.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 9 of 52

A Network Slice Type (NEST) is the result of filling GST attributes with values accord-
ing to the service requirements. In essence, a NEST is a filled-in version of a GST, and can
be used by an operator and a vertical customer to agree on the Service Level Agreement
(SLA). Different NESTs allow the description of different network slices. For slices based on
3GPP 5G service categories, the operator may have a set of standardized NESTs (S-NESTs).
For slices addressing specific industry use cases, the operator can define additional NESTs
(P-NESTs) [22].
Table 1 provides one example with three NESTs, one for each slice represented in
Figure 2. The table also qualifies the impact of the NEST attributes on every technical domain.

2.4. From a Service Order to a Deployed Network Slice

For enabling NSaaS, the operator registers in their portfolio a collection of service
offerings, each representing a slice associated with a SLA. This SLA includes two main types
of information: (i) technical information, which is captured in a NEST; and (ii) charging
and pricing information. For the request of a network slice, the vertical customer browses
the operator’s portfolio, selects the service offering that best fits their needs, and issues the
corresponding service order. From this point on, the following activities are triggered on
the operator side:
1. The operator’s BSS (Business Support System) captures the service order. It uses the
charging and pricing information to configure the customer profile, and forwards the
technical information (the NEST) to the E2E management domain using TM Forum
Service Ordering API [23].
2. In the E2E management domain, the Communication Service Management Function
(CSMF) translates the NEST parameter values into the ServiceProfile construction
(see Figure 1).
3. The CSMF requests the allocation of a network slice based on this ServiceProfile. The
CSMF sends this request to the Network Slice Management Function (NSMF), using
the allocateNsi operation (see clause 6.5.1 from 3GPP TS 28.531 [24]).
4. With the network slice allocation request, the NSMF is asked to deploy a network slice
instance (NSI) on the operator’s managed network infrastructure, in such a way that
the service requirements captured in the ServiceProfile are fulfilled. Before beginning
the deployment of network slice subnet instances (NSSIs) and the reservation of WAN
resources across them, the NSMF shall make sure that the network slice allocation
is feasible. To that end, it requests the Decision Engine (see Figure 2) to perform
a feasibility check procedure. The complete procedure execution can be separated
into two parts. The first part checks for the qualitative network capabilities that the
network slice instance requires, e.g., availability of a specific radio access technology
or feasible network function configurations. This is expected to be completed rather
quickly and can therefore provide a quick reply in the case of a negative (“network
slice instance unfeasible”) response. In case of a positive qualitative check, the second
part quantitatively checks if there are enough infrastructure resources (including
radio, WAN and compute resources) available for use. It also calculates confidence
values if resource availability is associated with statistical uncertainty, e.g., due to
statistical fluctuations in resource consumption of already deployed slice instances.
5. If feasible, the NSMF proceeds with the NSI allocation, based on the allocation of
(i) the RAN NSSI, (ii) the CN NSSI, and (iii) the WAN resources providing end-to-end
connectivity. In this process, the NSMF interacts with the Network Slice Subnet
Management Functions (NSSMFs) from the RAN and CN management domains, and
with the SDN fabric from the TN management domain. The NSSMFs may interact in
turn with the NFV Orchestrator (NFVO) through SOL005 [25], for the cases where the
NSSIs can be deployed as ETSI network services.
Figure 3 illustrates the deployment view of the network slices shown in Figure 2. This
view shows these slices are allocated on the operator’s managed infrastructure, in the form
of NSIs. For this allocation, it is assumed that (i) the network slices have been ordered
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 10 of 52

according to the NESTs specified in Table 1, and (ii) the infrastructure consists of a RAN
with cell sites attached via dedicated fibers to a three-tier TN. This capillarity in TN design
allows the distribution of compute capacity, across Points of Presence (PoPs), which are
physically deployed at three different aggregation levels:
• Central PoPs, which correspond to large-scale core cloud sites. They are typically built
with commodity (x86 or ARM based) hardware, and are ideal to host IT applications
and delay-tolerant telco workloads.
• Regional PoPs, which represent Central Offices featuring the telco edge cloud [26].
The regional PoPs provide virtualization capabilities closer to service delivery end-
points in order to reduce the delay budget, making them ideal to host delay-critical
telco workloads.
• Finally, access PoPs, which are associated with far edge sites. Much more distributed
and closer to cell sites than regional PoPs, the access PoPs provide execution envi-
ronments for hosting workloads with real-time requirements, e.g., virtualized DU
instances (vDUs). In this regard, commodity hardware is no longer valid; they need
to be equipped with advanced, rich-featured CPU architectures (e.g., Intel Xeon) and
hardware acceleration solutions (e.g., FPGA, structured ASICs, etc.) instead [27].

CU-CP vEMS NRF, NSSF,

Common Network Functions
AUSF, UDM,..

mIoT
CU-UP UPF SMF DN
NSI

eMBB RU SMF DN
DU CU-UP UPF
NSI

uRLLC CU-UP UPF DN SMF PCF

NSI

NFVI (IaaS/CaaS) NFVI (IaaS/CaaS) NFVI (IaaS/CaaS)

N*50G/100G N*200G/400G

Internet
N*25G

Cell site Access PoP Regional PoP Central PoP

(>1000) (<100) (<10)
Hub & Spoke, Ring Hub & Spoke, Ring, Mesh Hub & Spoke, Ring, Mesh

Access (<10km) Aggregation (<100km) Metro Core (<500 km)

Max 300 us Max 3ms Max 15ms

Figure 3. On the deployment of network slices.

3. Impact of Network Slicing

The introduction of slicing will impact all the technical domains of the network. In
this section, we review the features required on these domains to support slicing. These
constitute the basis for the understanding of the different solutions that will be explained
later on, in Sections 5–8.

3.1. CN Slicing
The impact of network slicing in the CN domain can be summarized into three main
topics: slice identity management, slice-aware device connectivity and the allocation of
separate 5GC functions.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 11 of 52

3.1.1. Slice Identity Management

The network slicing feature was first introduced in Release 15, with the ability of the
5GC to support multiple network slices and differentiate among them. This differentiation
is done using two signalling identifiers: the Single Network Slice Selection Assistance
Information (S-NSSAI) and the Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI).
The S-NSSAI identifies a network slice across the UE, RAN and the 5GC. It is a 32-bit
parameter comprised of two fields:
• A Slice/Service Type (SST): mandatory 8-bit field that refers to the expected network
slice behavior in terms of features and supported services. The SST field may have
standardized and operator-specific (non-standardized) values. The standardized
SST range [10] includes values from 0 to 127, while values 128 to 255 belong to the
operator specific range. For now, the following SST values have become normative:
SST = 1 (enhanced Mobile Broadband), eMBB), SST = 2 (Ultra Reliable Low Latency
Communication, uRLLC), SST = 3 (massive IoT, mIoT), SST = 4 (Vehicle to Everything,
V2X) and SST = 5 ( High-Performance Machine-Type Communications, HMTC).
• A Slice Differentiator (SD): optional 24-bit field that allows the operator to differentiate
among multiple network slices with the same SST. This differentiation can be in terms
of slice features (e.g., mobile vs fixed-wireless access services, charging), customer
information (tenancy) and slice priority.
An NSSAI is a collection of S-NSSAIs sent by the device to assist the network in select-
ing a particular network slice for this UE. Within the Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN),
the NSSAI is managed at the Tracking Area level in the RAN, and at the Registration Area
level in the 5GC. Different types of NSSAIs exist, including Configured NSSAI (NSSAI
provisioned in the device), Subscribed NSSAI (NSSAI stored in the UDM), Requested
NSSAI (provided by the UE to the serving PLMN during registration) and Allowed NSSAI
(provided by the serving PLMN to the UE during registration) [10]. The 5GC uses the
Requested NSSAI for slice selection and validation, and returns the Allowed NSSAI. The
Allowed NSSAI indicates the S-NSSAI values that the UE can use in the serving PLMN for
the current Registration Area.
Figure 4 summarizes the use of S-NSSAI and NSSAI artifacts in the 5G network.

It is used for service discovery in SBA. It stores subscription data It allows the operator to define policies that can be used
It selects the set of The NRF keeps a list of network slices including slicing information, to associate UE applications with S-NSSAI. These policies
network slices (S-NSSAIs) for a given PLMN ID. such as Subscribed S-NSSAI(s), are captured in the Network Slice Seelction Policy
granted to the UE, - Input: S-NSSAI Default S-NSSAI(s) and Default (NSSP), which is part of the URSP that the PCF sends (via
when AMF is unable - Output: NF instances matching the DNN per Subscribed S-NSSAI AMF) to the UE.
by itself. The NSSF S-NSSAI.
determines the It provides slice
Allowed S-NSSAIs. It specific data
also determines the analytics to a NF
serving AMF, possibly
NSSF NRF UDM PCF NWDAF (e.g. NSSF, PCF,
by quering the NRF NSSMF)
- Input: S-NSSAI(s)
- Output: Slice
performance data
It provides the UE with the Allowed per S-NSSAI.
NSSAI, based on the UE Requested It may select serving
NSSAI. If necessary, it request re- AMF SMF UPF instance(s) based
allocation of AMF (via gNB) or directly on S-NSSAI
to target AMF instance. AMF selects
the serving SMF instance based on S-
NSSAI N2 N4 It may use S-NSSAI to compute slice
level user plane metrics, to be
It provides the consumed by performance
Requested
It uses the Requested management services at the OSS
NSSAI (to the
NSSAI (recieved from
gNB) as input
the UE) to select a N6
to the Network gNB N3
Slice Selection
suitable AMF. The UPF DN
gNB makes use of
Allowed NSSAI for
resource allocation N9

Figure 4. Impact of slicing in 5GC.

Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 12 of 52

3.1.2. Slice-Aware Device Connectivity

According to 3GPP specifications, the Allowed NSSAI can include a maximum of
eight S-NSSAI values [10]. This means that a device can establish Packet Data Unit (PDU)
sessions with up to eight slices at the same time.
The device can have different client applications (e.g., internet browsing applications,
enterprise applications, XR applications), each requiring the connection to a different
slice. To make this possible, the device needs to be made slicing aware, something that is
achieved with the introduction of the UE Resource Selection Policy (URSP) [28]. The URSP
is a network slicing feature enabled by the Policy Control Function (PCF), which informs
the network slice status to the UE via the Access and Mobility management Function (AMF).
It is composed of a number of URSP rules that map application information (e.g., client
application ID, device Operation System ID, IP descriptors) with network slice information
(e.g., S-NSSAI, Session and Service Continuity, Data Network Name). The device uses the
URSP to determine which PDU session shall be chosen for a particular application based
on URSP rules. For further information on the URSP and its use for slicing support at the
device side, please see [29].

3.1.3. 5GC Network Functions

As commented in Section 2.2, the allocation of dedicated network functions on a
network slice allows it to be tailored to the specific needs of hosted service(s). Where there
is more potential to making this customization is on the 5GC side.
It is not the goal of this subsection to discuss which 5GC functions are to be dedicated
to a slice; indeed, as we will see in Section 5.1, this entirely depends on the business
requirements of individual customers. The purpose of this section is instead to outline
the importance of some 5GC functions when building up CN slice subnets. In this regard,
the UPF is the most valuable network function to be dedicated, followed by control plane
network functions (SBA).
The importance of having a dedicated UPF comes from two important reasons: (i) a
tailored user plane QoS, and (ii) an improved availability and reliability. The first point
refers to the ability of allocating an UPF with required resource capacity where needed,
e.g., close to customer premises to ensure low latency. The second point means that having
a dedicated UPF instance allows optimal redundancy level to be achieved, and the risk
of service interruption for the slice to be reduced, ensuring that established sessions can
survive for a period of time, even when the connection to the control plane functions is lost.
The control plane functions are the second-most valuable assets to dedicate. For
example, with a dedicated Session Management Function (SMF) [10], it is possible to make
changes to established sessions and establish new sessions for a period of time, even if the
connection to UPFs is lost.

3.2. RAN Slicing

In the NG-RAN, the introduction of slicing has an impact on three main aspects: gNB
configuration, mobility support and Radio Resource Management (RRM) procedures.

3.2.1. gNB Configuration

A gNB can be configured to support multiple slices. This configuration, done via the
NSSMF, is based on the following principles:
(a) Network slices are defined within a PLMN. In RAN sharing scenarios, where multiple
PLMNs share the same cell, each operator needs to link S-NSSAIs with the PLMN ID.
(b) The gNB serves a cell. The cell belongs to a tracking area, which is identified with two
artifacts: Tracking Area Code (TAC), i.e., local identifier, and Tracking Area Identifier
(TAI), i.e., universal identifier. The TAI is a {PLMN ID, TAC} tuple, and it is relevant
in RAN sharing scenarios. To indicate the tracking area to which the cell belongs to,
the gNB broadcasts one or more TAIs, i.e. one TAI per hosted PLMN ID [30].
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 13 of 52

(c) A network slice is linked to a tracking area. This is because S-NSSAIs are managed
per tracking area [31].
Based on the above principles, it can be noticed that all cells belonging to the same
tracking areas must serve the same set of network slices. Once the gNB is set with supported
slices (per TAI), its mission is to map traffic from individual PDU sessions into appropriate
NG-RAN resources. This is done by associating the tuple {S-NSSAI, PLMN ID} with one
Dedicated Radio Bearer (DRB). The profile of the DRB is configured with RRM parameters
which are tailored to the service requirements of the slice.

3.2.2. Mobility Support

When the device moves from one cell to another, a handover procedure is triggered.
The handover request (from the source gNB to the target gNB) includes the network slices
assigned to the UE, specifying the tuple {S-NSSAI, PLMN ID} for each active PDU session.
According to the principles listed earlier, it is clear that handover requests between gNBs
from the same tracking area are always successful. However, in the case of mobility outside
a tracking area, it might happen that one or more PDU sessions could not be transferred,
because the associated S-NSSAI are not available in the target cell. In traditional radio
control admission solutions, where handover acceptance is subject to the admission of all
radio bearers, this scenario would result in an automatic handover rejection. To solve this
all-or-nothing approach, partial admission control mechanisms are being developed. These
mechanisms allow the admission of those PDU sessions whose associated S-NSSAIs are
supported in the target gNB. The logic is as follows:
• The target gNB will send handover request ACK with Admitted PDU session and
Not Admitted PDU session.
• If all the S-NSSAIs in the handover request are not admitted, the handover will be
rejected.
Figure 5 shows an example of mobility support using this partial admission control
for handover management.

S-NSSAI #1 (SST=1): Video streaming slice

TAC #33
S-NSSAI #2 (SST=1, SD=x): PPDR slice
Supported S-NSSAI: 1, 2
S-NSSAI #3 (SST=4, SD=y): Automotive slice

Partial
OK
Handover Request: OK
• PDU session x with S-NSSAI # 1
• PDU session y with S-NSSAI # 2
• PDU session z with S-NSSAI # 3 OK
Handover Response (Partial OK):
• Admitted PDU Sessions: x, y
• Rejected PDU Sessions: z OK

TAC #22
Supported S-NSSAI: 1, 2, 3
OK TAC #11
NOK
Supported S-NSSAI: 1, 2

Handover Request:
• PDU session z with S-NSSAI # 3
Handover Response (NOK):
• Handover Preparation Failure

Figure 5. Slice-aware mobility.

Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 14 of 52

3.2.3. RRM Procedures

The gNB includes a set of RRM procedures that govern the allocation of NR cell
resources across existing slices, in such a way that shortage of resources in one slice does
not break the SLA of another slice. There are two fundamental RRM procedures: admission
control and scheduling.
The task of admission control is to admit or reject the establishment requests for new
radio bearers. Admission control can be based on number of users (RRC connections) or
number of DRBs. The first option allows limiting the number of UEs accessing a specific
slice based on SLA requirements. The second option is based on reserving enough DRBs
for each slice, according to their estimated data volume.
The scheduling allows the gNB to dispatch available Physical Radio Blocks (PRBs),
i.e., frequency-time resource grids, across the different slices, in such a way that the QoS
requirements associated with their PDU sessions can be fulfilled. These requirements are
expressed with the 3GPP 5G Quality Indicator (5QI) [10].
At a very high load, admission control provides the scheduler with sufficient resources
to secure QoS of all the admitted users. To that end, it is very important to design an efficient
admission control algorithm that can take into account the overall resource situation, the
priorities of users based on their category level, the QoS of the in-progress request and the
QoS requirements of the new radio bearer requests.
The operation in the admission control and scheduling procedures is, in both cases,
based on the configuration of the following per slice quotas: dedicated minimum slice
quota (optional), minimum slice quota (mandatory) and maximum slice quota (mandatory).
Figure 6 provides a summary of these three quotas. These quotas need to be specified for
each RRM procedure, since the managed NR cell resources are different:
• For admission control, the NR cell resources correspond to either RRC connections
(option 1) or DRBs (option 2). For option 1, it is the CU-CP which configures the
quotas. For option 2, it is the CU-UP.
• When scheduling, the NR cell resources correspond to PRBs, based on which per slice
quotas are defined.
In this work, we will focus on scheduling aspects. Table 2 shows different examples
on how to configure the slice quotas for scheduling. As seen, depending on the values set
for these quotas, the slice can be profiled into different categories.

Table 2. RAN slice characterization based on configured quotas.

Ded Min Minimum Maximum RAN Slice Characterisation

Slice Quota Slice Quota Slice Quota
Dedicated slice-profile 1 (dedicated +
10% 10% 45%
shared)
Dedicated slice-profile 2 (dedicated +
10% 20% 45%
priori-tized + shared)
- 20% 45% Prioritized slice (prioritized + shared)
Best effort slice (can also use
- 0% 45% prioritized re-sources if spare left by
another prioritized slice)

3.3. TN Slicing
Unlike the NG-RAN and 5GC, the TN domain is out of the scope of the 3GPP network
slice concept. 3GPP provides slicing solutions for the RAN and CN domain, but not for
the TN. However, to maintain consistency on the slice established between the device
and the service application, there is a need to map 3GPP slice criteria into appropriate
transport capabilities offered in the fronthaul, midhaul, backhaul and DN segments. This
is not trivial.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 15 of 52

On the one hand, there is the need to configure WAN resources in such a way that
the requirements captured in the ServiceProfile and SliceProfile can be fulfilled in the TN
substrate. This requires translating network function layer requirements associated with
S-NSSAI information (e.g., maximum delay budget, data rates, availability, mobility speed,
usage density) into transport network characteristics that include bandwidth, latency and
criteria such as traffic prioritization, directionality, protection and disjoint routes. This
translation is done at provisioning time.

RRM PROCEDURES

Admission Control Scheduling

Description: admits or rejects new users / new Data Description: schedule air interface usage ( =
Radio Bearers (DRBs) based on available resources frequency and time) based on available resource
quotas per PLMN / slice. quotas and per PLMN / slice.
Cell Resources: Number of RRC connections (= Cell Resources: Number of Physical Resource Block
number of users); Number of non-GBR DBRs. (PRBs) for GBR and non-GBR

Maximum Slice Quota (M)

100% • Maximum amount of resources the
slice is allowed to use
Shared Resources: • Can be up to 100%
Common pool. They can be shared with • Sum of max’s shoul be at least 100%
other slices in the cell (no guarantees (to be able to use all cell capacity)
per slice).
Cell resources

Prioritized Resources: Minimum Slice Quota (M)

• Lower limit of the resources the slice is
Guaranteed for use by the slice when
Shared Resources “guaranteed” to get in congestion
needed. When free (unused), these situations
resources can be borrowed by other • Not bigger than Maximum Slice Quota
slices in the cell. Prioritized Resources • Can be 0% for a ”best-effort” slice
• Sum of min’s should be at most 100%
Dedicated Resource: resources Dedicated Resources
exclusively reserved for the slice 0% Dedicated Minimum Slice Quota (O)
• Not bigger than Minimum Slice Quota
Slice X

Figure 6. RRM procedures for slicing.

On the other hand, there exists a wide availability of transport technologies in carrier
networks. These technologies provide multi-layer connectivity services using different
topologies (e.g., hub-and-spoke, ring, point-to-point, point-to-multipoint). Though they
do not support slicing natively, these technologies are able to mimic slicing behavior, if
configured (and combined) properly.
In this section, we focus on the main enablers for these two open questions.

3.3.1. On the Mapping of 3GPP Slice Information into TN Nodes

To configure the TN slicing behaviour in the WAN resources, the TN management
domain needs the following information:
• Network slice topology. The TN management domain needs to know the application
endpoints of the slice to determine the needed WAN resources, which are either
physical or virtual nodes. NSMF/NSSMFs provide the application endpoints [32]
of 3GPP network functions taking part in the RAN and CN slice subnets and, if
applicable, further information such as the next-hop router IP address configured in
these network slice subnets. For example, the CU-UP application endpoints are the IP
addresses/VLAN IDs associated with the F1 and N3 interfaces. The TN management
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 16 of 52

domain correlates this information with the transport network topology and derives
the (cell site or border) routers connecting to network functions.
• Traffic segregation and mapping to S-NSSAIs. As 3GPP network functions can be
shared by multiple network slices, it is necessary to segregate traffic belonging to
specific slices on transport interfaces. One option for traffic segregation is to assign
application endpoints to a specific set of S-NSSAI values. This solution is rather
simple, as the TN can map packets to connectivity services based on application
endpoints, provided that (i) the allocation of S-NSSAI to endpoints is known, and (ii)
the application endpoints are visible on the transport layer. While this is the simplest
solution in many cases, it is not a universal solution, as the application endpoint
addresses are not always visible to the site router, e.g., when there is encryption
using IPSec. An alternative solution is the concept of logical transport interfaces,
as shown in Figure 7A. A logical transport interface is a virtual interface separated
from application endpoints. It can be, for example, a specific IP address/VLAN
combination corresponding to an IPSec termination point, or an identifier (e.g., MPLS
label, segment ID) that the TN recognizes, or it can be just a logical interface defined
on top of a physical transport interface. As long as the interface identity can be
derived from packet headers, the TN nodes can perform the mapping to transport
connectivity services.
• Reachability information. Each logical transport interface carries the traffic associated
with some application endpoints that may be using IP addresses separate from the
transport interface. These IP addresses must be reachable, hence they need to be
advertised to populate forwarding tables. A 3GPP network function can advertise
such reachability information by running a dynamic routing protocol towards the
next hop router.
• QoS requirements. To satisfy the service requirements captured in ServiceProfile and
SliceProfile, each logical transport interface needs to be bound to a QoS profile that
includes the applicability and use of DiffServ Code Points (DSCP) [33] and QoS related
properties on that interface.
To allow the TN management domain to receive this information from the 3GPP
management system, the EP_Transport IOC [15] is defined. Part of the Network Slice
NRM fragment (see Figure 1), this class allows the capture of the information that shall
be exchanged between the 3GPP management system (E2E management domain, RAN
management domain and CN management domain) and the TN management domain.
This information is used to configure WAN resources in such a way that the requirements
captured in ServiceProfile and SliceProfile can be fulfilled. Figure 7B shows the construction
of the EP_Transport IOC, and how it maps the logical transport interface to application
endpoints. Notice that one EP_Transport (representing a logical transport interface) can
be associated with more than one multiple EP_Application (representing an application
endpoint of a 3GPP network function), but also the other way around. While the first case
captures the typical situation, the second case can be used for the sake of resilience or load
balance in the TN. For example, in Figure 7A, instead of configuring multiple nextHops for
one EP_Transport to allow multiple optional “links” between the gNB port and the cell site
router, the solution adopted is as follows: to configure one nextHop for each EP_Transport,
but have more than one EP_Transport for an EP_N3 to achieve similar load balance or
resilience goal.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 17 of 52

(A)

(B)
Figure 7. On the use of logical transport interfaces for TN slicing support. (A) Traffic segregation and mapping to S-NSSAIs;
the BR is also referred to as Provider Edge (PE) router. (B) Schema for the EP_Transport IOC.

3.3.2. Transport Technologies

To convey slice traffic in the transport network, multiple forwarding plane technolo-
gies can be used. Depending on their isolation capabilities, these technologies can be
clustered into two main categories: soft slicing (the traffic loading on one slide may de-
grade the performance of other slices, because of the use of statistical multiplexing and
service classes) and hard slicing (the traffic loading on one slice has no impact on the traffic
from any other slice, including QoS effects).
The soft slicing category uses packet-based technologies to provide traffic-engineered
and traffic-managed isolation of resources. This category encompasses Layer 2 and Layer
3 technologies, including tunnelling (e.g., VxLAN, MPLS) and virtualization (e.g., VPN,
VLAN) based technologies. The mutual impact of QoS of slices sharing the same infras-
tructure resources may be mitigated by traffic engineering including, for example, limiting
the statistical multiplexing ratio, or traffic policing on each network slice.
Hard slicing can be guaranteed through independent circuit switched connections (e.g.,
dedicated wavelength, dedicated TDM time slot) for the exclusive use of a single network
slice. Unlike soft slicing, this category is thought of as being implemented at Layer 1, using
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 18 of 52

techniques much more closely coupled to the hardware itself, such as optical transport
network switching [34] or novel Ethernet-based solutions like Flex-Ethernet [35,36].
Depending on the customer requirements, the operator may go for soft slicing or
hard slicing, or a mixture of the two. Indeed, it is possible to combine them as shown in
Figure 8, with hard slicing ensuring a dedicated capacity chunk for the customer, and soft
slicing providing traffic seggregation among the services belonging to this customer. This
approach preserves a cost-efficient solution to the customer that has multiple services, and
wants them not to be impacted with traffic congestion or faults issued by services from
other customers.

Soft slicing Hybrid slicing Hard slicing

• Think hard pipes (private
• Think VPNs • Think VPNs in a hard
lines / wavelenghts)
• Good statistical pipe
• Guaranteed isolation
mutiplexing efficiency • Good statistical
(allocation of dedicated
• Bad statistical SLA (no multiplexing efficiency
resources)
guranterees) • Guaranteed isolation
• Underutilization (no
• Hard pipe choices
multiplexing gains)

IMS slice
Customer: Mobile
Segment Routed Gaming slice (Virtual) Network
VPNs Operator
Video streaming slice

Customer: emergency
Inside Hard Pipes PPDR slice authorities

Customer: V2X service

Automotive slice provider
1

Figure 8. Soft, hard and hybrid slicing in transport networks.

4. Network Slicing Technology Radar

Network slicing is an E2E solution, covering the three technology domains: RAN,
CN and TN. The provisioning and operation of the different slices, and the lifecycle man-
agement of hosted services, is done with a cloud-native OSS stack composed of a number
of management domains, including vertical domains (e.g., RAN, CN, TN management
domains) and horizontal domains (e.g., MANO and E2E management domains). The
maturity level of slicing varies across all these technology and management domains. This
fact, together with the integration complexity of carrier networks (e.g., brownfield facilities,
multi-vendor solutions), defines challenges that operators need to work out to enable the
full promise of network slicing in a later phase.
Although standards and technologies do not currently support full slicing capabilities,
it is important to get started with early-stage slicing and to use a vision of what is desired
in the longer term to guide progress and focus. For operators, it is important to take a
phased-based approach, establishing a process to incorporate learnings at each stage of the
slicing journey.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 19 of 52

OSS Slice day-2 CN

config APIs
Traffic B2C: 5GC Slice Type
influence B2B: 5GC Slice A2 (shared UPF)
Customer- APIs Type B3
defined slice (premium CP)
composition APIs QoS control APIs B2B: 5GC Slice
Type B2
B2B: 5GC Slice Type
B1 (baseline CP) (advanced CP)
Advanced Device
Slice config APIs Slice mgmt Secondary
Assurance data APIs Edge computing authentication
Complete Slice APIs
DNN- Slice
NRM fragment based Roaming
Lite Slice NRM B2C: 5GC Slice Type Multiple
Device info APIs
fragment A1 (dedicated UPF) slices per UE
Baseline Slice Assurance
Accounting,
NSCAF
Charging &
Baseline NSA slicing
Advanced NST/NSST Billing APIs Baseline edge
Decision Engine (pre-slicing) Advanced edge
Decision Engine computing computing NWDAF

Explore Test MANO stack

Deploy As-Is As-Is Deploy Test Explore
Physical gNB
NSA SA (Rel-15) SA (Rel-16) SA (Rel-17+)
IP domain SDN
Slicing-aware MW domain SDN Carrier-grade
controller - SBI Slice-specific Near-RT RIC
E2E SDN controller - SBI L2/L3 overlay DU-CU disaggreg
vCU-UP xApps
controller QCI Priority
Scheduling (PS)
Domain SDN vCU-UP/
Near-RT RIC
controllers - NBI Optics domain SDN vCU-CP
Segment integration
controller - SBI Relative
Routing vDU
5QI PS PS

DiffServ Code On-premises

E2E SDN Point (DSCP) Delay controlled PS Non-RT RIC
E2E SDN Flex-E
controller - Hard Radio integration
controller - Resource
NBI internal logic SD-WAN Part. (RRP) Flexible RRP: dynamic
Flex-O PLMN, single-
IEEE TSN (AI-assisted)
DWDM slice TAI
(Sliced
lambdas)
IETF DetNet PLMN, multiple- Flexible RRP: static
slice TAI (policy-based)

TN Slicing-aware O-RAN FH interface PLMN, large scale RAN

2

Figure 9. Network slicing technology radar.

The mission of this section (and upcoming ones) is to present a network slicing technol-
ogy radar that can help operators to build their own journey towards the commercialization
and monetization of slicing. As shown in Figure 9, this radar captures a list of solutions
for network slicing impacting all relevant operator’s sub-systems, including RAN, TN,
CN and OSS. This is complemented by an assessment work, called ring assignment. In
particular, we use four rings with the following semantics:
• As-is ring: represents solutions that are available in today’s carrier networks. These so-
lutions are typically associated with technologies that operators have high confidence
in, with low risk and recommended to be available across the entire service footprint.
In terms of 5G roll-out strategy, this corresponds to 5G NSA (Non Standalone) [37].
• Deploy ring: covers the slicing solutions that can be applied in early 5G SA (Stan-
dalone) networks, based on 3GPP Release 15 standards. Some operators have already
started to activate their SA networks, while some others expect to get them opera-
tionally ready within next year. With this timing in mind, we can say that this ring
captures proven slicing solutions that operators may integrate in the short-term.
• Test ring: captures slicing solutions that are much more focused on satisfying require-
ments from uRLLC and mIoT services. Associated with brand new Rel-16 features,
these solutions have great potential but are unproven in production networks, hence
it is worth operators investing in prototyping efforts in order to evaluate their perfor-
mance and impact. This evaluation is typically done with commercial trials, either
bilateral or multi-vendor, and different Proof of Concepts (PoCs). The upgrade to-
wards Rel-16 is expected within the next 2–3 years; this means that test ring represents
slicing solutions that might be available in the medium term.
• Explore ring: includes slicing solutions that are foreseen in the long run, starting in the
next 4–5 years. These solutions, tied to features from 3GPP Rel-17 on wards, promise
to provide great potential, though their impact and commercial availability is still far
from crystal clear. The role of the operator is to keep track of their evolution through
exploratory activities such as the ones done in research and innovation projects, e.g.,
5G-VINNI [38], 5GROWTH [39] and 5G-CLARITY [40].
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 20 of 52

As outlined in Section 1, for the position of each solution into this radar, three criteria
have been considered: (i) the technological maturity of the solution, which is subjected to
the readiness of the standards; (ii) the roadmap of commercial products, which specifies
when the features associated with the solution will be available; and (iii) the relevance
for the customers, which determine the prioritization of the solution over others. The
following sections provide details on these solutions, across the involved subsystems: CN
(Section 5), RAN (Section 6), TN (Section 7) and OSS (Section 8).

5. CN Domain
In this domain, the technology radar captures information from two different di-
mensions: functionality and add-on features. The functionality dimension deals with the
discussion on how to use CN functions for the construction of different network slices,
scouting different deployment options for these slices depending on the isolation and
business requirements of hosted services. On the other hand, the add-on features dimen-
sion refers to the set of value-added solutions that complement and extend baseline slice
functionality. The network operator can optionally make use of these solutions to either
(i) provision enriched services to the customer, i.e., new revenue streams; or (ii) streamline
internal network operation, i.e., OPEX savings.

5.1. Functionality
The first 5G commercial networks available worldwide are based on NSA. The reason
is that most communication service providers are looking to deliver mainly high-speed
connectivity to consumers already with 5G-enabled devices today. For these providers,
the NSA mode makes the most sense, because it allows them to leverage their existing
packet core assets (EPC) rather than deploy a completely new 5G network. In this mode,
where 5GC does not exist, there is no native slicing support, as outlined in Section 3.1.
However, this lack of slicing enablers (e.g., no S-NSSAI support) does not mean the
operators are unable to provide service differentiation and traffic segregation at the core
side; in fact, there are a number of solutions that allow the EPC to enforce some level of
traffic separation for overload mitigation when having multiple services. Figure 10 depicts
a functional description of some of these solutions, tagged with NSA slicing (pre-slicing)
wording. As seen, the capabilities across these solutions are quite different, ranging from
basic QoS differentiation (e.g., QCI based common APN-S/PGW) to a complete packet
core separation (e.g., DECOR [41]), with a number of variants in between, some of them
subjected to technology availability. For example, NFV technology is a must for the
implementation of the control user plane separation solution (Figure 10E).
As communication service providers set their sights on new revenue streams from
groundbreaking 5G services (i.e., uRLLC, mIoT, V2X services), they realize the need to
migrate to the SA mode, which represents the target 5G system architecture [42]. With
the first commercial 5GC solution suites already available in the market, operators can
bring native slicing functionality into their carrier-class facilities. Despite being Rel-15
complaint, these first solution suites typically provide very limited capabilities in relation
to S-NSSAI support; in fact, many of them offer single-slice support, with their AMF/SMF
implementations only able to deal with one S-NSSAI at a time. The fact that one single slice
can be configured in the 5GC prevents the operator from using separate slices to achieve
service/customer traffic segregation. In these circumstances, non-NSSAI assisted solutions
shall be used instead. One example is the provisioning of separate Data Network Name
(DNN) [10] for different services/customers. This DNN-based solution is equivalent to
the pre-slicing solution shown in Figure 10B, where virtual APN/QCI (EPC artifacts) are
now replaced with DNN/5QI (5GC artifacts).
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 21 of 52

Impact on Core Network IMSI/APN IMSI

Impact on Core Network
HSS HSS
UE No impact Subscribed APN, RFSP UE No impact Subscribed APN, CC, RFSP
MME No impact MME No impact
S/PGW Mapping of QCI to DSCP S/PGW CC based vAPN selection + QCI-to-
HSS Per slice RFSP provisioning
PCRF PCRF
DSCP mapping + QCI per vAPN
TAI/APN TAI/APN/CC
DNS No impact HSS Per slice CC & RFSP provisioning in
PCRF Mapping of slice to QCI/ARP DNS subscriber profiles DNS
S/P-GW IMSI/APN S/P-GW IMSI/vAPN/CC
IP address
DNS APN+CC based S5/S11 selection
IP address
PCRF Mapping of slice to QCI/ARP
QCI/ARP QCI/ARP

QCIx APNx CCx/QCIx

UE MME S/PGW APN UE MME
QCI/ARP RAN QCI/ARP/RFSP
QCIy RAN S/PGW APNy CCy/QCIy
QCI/ARP QCI/ARP QCI/ARP/RFSP QCI/ARP
QCIz APNz CCz/QCIz
DSCP x/y/z

(A) (B)

Impact on Core Network IMSI IMSI

Impact on Core Network
HSS HSS
UE Provisioning of dedicated APN (UE is Subscribed APN, CC, RFSP UE No impact Subscribed APN, UUT, RFSP
slice aware) MME Separate instance, UUT-DCN-MME
MME No impact mapping
S/PGW Separate instance CC or APN + QCI-
PCRF PCRF
S/PGW Separate instance + QCI-to-DSCP
TAI/APN/CC TAI/APN
to-DSCP mapping mapping + QCI per APN
HSS Per slice APN provisioning in DNS HSS Per slice UUT & RFSP provisioning in DNS
subscriber profiles S/P-GW IMSI/APN S/P-GW IMSI/APN
IP address
subscriber profiles
IP address + UUT
DNS APN based P-GW selection DNS UUT based S/P-GW selection
PCRF Mapping of slice to QCI/ARP QCI/ARP PCRF Mapping of slice to QCI/ARP QCI/ARP

QCI/ARP Requested APN QCI/ARP QCI/ARP

UE MME S/PGW UE MME S/PGW
QCI/ARP RAN QCI/ARP/RFSP
APN/QCI set
QCI/ARP
APN/QCI set
Reroute
RAN NAS
signalling QCI/ARP
S/PGW MME S/PGW
APN/QCI set APN/QCI set

(C) (D)

Impact on Core Network IMSI

HSS
UE No impact or provisioning of dedicated
Subscribed APN, RFSP
APN (UE is slice aware)
MME No impact
S/PGW Separate instance + QCI-to-DSCP
PCRF
TAI/APN
mapping + QCI per APN
HSS Per slice RFSP provisioning in DNS
subscriber profiles S/P-GW IMSI/APN
IP address + UUT
DNS APN based on S/PGW-u selection
PCRF Mapping of slice to QCI/ARP QCI/ARP

APN
Requested APN
MME S/PGW-c
Slice #n APN UE QCI/ARP/ QCI/ARP
QCI/ARP RFSP

RAN S/PGW-u APN/QCI set

S/PGW-u APN/QCI set

(E)
Figure 10. Different deployment options for NSA slicing. (A) QCI based common APN-S/PGW. (B) Virtual APN/QCI
based on Charging Characteristics (CC). (C) Dedicated S/PGW. (D) DECOR. (E) Control User Plane Separation.

With the ever-increasing adoption of DevOps practices in the telco industry, 5GC
software may be developed, delivered, tested and brought into operation incrementally at a
far higher cadence than it was before. The CI/CD pipeline [43] will allow vendors to reduce
time-to-market and shorten release cycles in their product roadmap. Based on this rationale,
it is expected that first 5GC solution suites will be quickly upgraded with new features,
including multi-slice support in AMF/SMF. This feature allows the configuration of two or
more slices in the same 5GC, by fetching associated S-NSSAIs from the NSSF and injecting
them into the corresponding AMF/SMF instances. The ability of having multiple 5GC slices
(CN slice subnets) running in parallel may offer operators greater possibilities to tap new
5G use cases targeting public network users (B2C market) and industry companies (B2B
market). These customers may have different service requirements in terms of performance
and functionality, hence the need to define different 5GC slice types for them:
1. Business-to-Customer (B2C) slice types, used for serving traffic from user-
centric applications.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 22 of 52

2. Business-to-Business (B2B) slice types, used for the provisioning of non-public net-
works (NPNs) [44], in particular for public network integrated NPNs (PNI-NPNs) [45].
Figure 11 captures a representative number of these 5GC slices types.

B2C Category: 5GC Slice Type A1 B2C Category: 5GC Slice Type A2 B2B Category: 5GC Slice Type B1
Network: E2E public Network: E2E public Network: hybrid (public + on-premises)

Shared Shared Dedicated Shared Dedicated

NSSF NRF UDM UPF NSSF NRF SMF UPF

NSSF NRF

PCF SMF AMF PCF SMF UDM PCF

Dedicated Dedicated
UPF UDM AMF UPF AMF SMF UPF

(A) (B) (C)

B2B Category: 5GC Slice Type B2 B2B Category: 5GC Slice Type B3
Network: hybrid (public + on-premises) Network: hybrid (public + on-premises)
Shared Dedicated Shared Dedicated
PCF SMF UPF NSSF AMF PCF SMF UPF
NSSF NRF
UDM
Dedicated Dedicated
UDM AMF
PCF SMF UPF NRF AMF PCF SMF UPF

(D) (E)
Figure 11. 5GC slice types. (A,B) represents B2C slice types. (C–E) represents B2B slice types.

On the one hand, there is the B2C category (Figure 11A,B). This category includes 5GC
slices (i) designed for end user consumption, so there is no need to have in-slice dedicated
control plane functions; and (ii) to be entirely built on the 5G public network infrastructure
(PLMN). Within this category, two different slice types can be found.
• 5GC slice Type A1 (shared UPF): deployment flavor wherein the 5GC slice does not
have a dedicated UPF; indeed, the in-slice UPF instance is also shared with other 5GC
slices.
• 5GC slice Type A2 (dedicated UPF): deployment flavor wherein the 5GC slice is
allocated with a separate UPF.
In the B2C category, the first 5GC slices to be launched may be of Type A2, with few
slices hosting premium communication services that end users can subscribe to. With a
commercial model based on offering VIP service experiences, the operator looks to keep
existing users and attract new ones, generating moderate revenues from their subscriptions
in the short term.
For Type A1 slices, the situation is rather different. Unlike Type A2 slices, where
traffic isolation across them is preserved with the provision of dedicated UPFs, in Type A1
slices the UPF is shared among them. In this context, operators expect that one UPF can
support multiple 5GC slices, which means that one UPF shall be able to manage user plane
resources (e.g., UE IP addresses, GTP-U Fully Qualified TEIDs, CPU, memory, bandwidth,
etc.) at the S-NSSAI granularity. Unfortunately, the ability for a UPF to perform resource
management (e.g., resource separation, resource allocation, resource usage report) per
5GC slice is not yet available in the standards due to technology limitations inherent to
UPF internals, though 3GPP have already started working on solutions to solve this [46].
Being a Rel-17+ feature, we are still years away from seeing Type A1 slices running in
production networks. However, their availability will mark a major turning point in
operator B2C slicing strategies, with the ability to deploy 5GC slices at a much wider scale,
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 23 of 52

offering performance levels similar to Type A2 slices, but using a much lower number of
UPFs. Additionally, the operator can use Type A1 slices to aggregate users with similar
performance profiles, all this in a transparent manner, in search of creating efficiency
improvements. This use of slicing, which allows the operator to streamline network
management operations, is referred to as ’Network Slicing for Network Operator internals’
in [17].
On the other hand, there is the B2B category (Figure 11C–E), which covers all the 5GC
slices which are intended for industry customers. Examples of these customers include
verticals and hyperscalers. Unlike the B2C category, the 5GC slices belonging to this new
category will be used to host services for private use (i.e., only available for the customer’s
subscribers), which typically span beyond the operator’s service footprint. This means
that (i) every slice shall have dedicated control plane functions, so that the isolation of
traffic management can be preserved across slices, and (ii) not all the in-slice functions will
be hosted by PLMN; indeed, some of them might be deployed at customer facilities (e.g.,
UPF). Within this category, three different 5GC slice types are worth mentioning.
• 5GC slice Type B1 (baseline CP): deployment flavor wherein 5GC slice is provided
with dedicated UPF and a dedicated SMF. This ensures that in-slice traffic flows have
an independent management and configuration, completely separated from other
5GC slices.
• 5GC slice Type B2 (advanced CP): represents a 5GC slice Type B1 provisioned with
dedicated PCF. Having a slice-specific PCF allows the customer to inject tailored QoS
policies over in-slice traffic flows.
• 5GC slice Type B3 (premium CP): represents a 5GC slice Type B2 provisioned with
dedicated AMF. Having a slice-specific AMF allows the customer to retain full control
over mobility and connection management aspects regarding their subscribers.
The B2B category aims to exploit the real benefits that network slicing enables, which
is the ability to provide separate network partitions with independent management for
different industry customers. What these customers value most is to perceive allocated
5GC slices as dedicated, self-contained networks, under their own control. To that end,
it is important for the operators to ensure that 5GC slices are delivered with network
capabilities equivalent to those offered by private 5GC solutions (e.g., guaranteed SLA,
traffic separation, controllable and configurable network), but at a much more reduced
cost. This, together with the trust on operator’s proven know-how on OAM activities, is
what will drive B2B customers to ask for a 5GC slice rather than purchasing a private 5GC
from a 3rd party.
As evidenced from Figure 11C–E, the customer’s perception of having a dedicated
network requires the operator to provision 5GC slices with separate instances of some
network functions. With the cloud-native design of 5GC and the consolidation of NFV
practices into container-based environments, operators are conducting trials in this direc-
tion, assessing how the allocation of dedicated network functions impacts the number of
5GC slices that can be instantiated. This isolation vs scalability trade-off has demonstrated
that the most optimal solution is to provision 5GC slices with dedicated instances of UPF
and SMF. This flavor, which corresponds to 5GC slice type B1 (Figure 11C), will satisfy the
service requirements of most industry customers [47,48]. However, there also exist specific
customers whose business requirements may make them ask operators for more tailored
5GC slices, such as type B2 slices (Figure 11D) and type B3 slices (Figure 11E). Examples of
these business requirements include the need for the customer to keep full control of QoS
policies, or the need to get separate connection management of their subscribers.
Putting the B2B and B2C category solutions into the timeline reflected in Figure 9, we
can outline two things. First, in relation to the B2C category, we can see that type A2 slices
may be commercially ready in the short term, while type A1 slices are expected in the long
run. Secondly, in relation to the B2B category, we can see that all 5GC slice types may be
available in the medium term, once Rel-16 features are integrated into the 5GC. Unlike the
B2C category, where the difference between 5GC slice types is subjected to the availability
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 24 of 52

of 3GPP solutions, in the B2B category the technology maturity of all the 5GC slice types is
the same. The decision of going for one or another solution is entirely dependent on the
customer-specific business requirements.

5.2. Add-on Features

The 5GC arena provides a lot of value-added capabilities that have a direct impact
on the use of slicing, and that operators can progressively incorporate into their commer-
cial networks.
In the short term (i.e., deploy ring in the radar), operators are focused on the introduc-
tion of edge computing. Edge computing is an evolution of cloud computing that allows
moving workloads from centralized data centers (e.g., central PoPs) down to the telco edge
nodes (e.g., regional PoPs), closer to consumers. In network slicing, edge computing is a
must; in fact, bringing application hosting closer to the UE’s access point of attachment
allows achieving an efficient service delivery through the reduced end-to-end latency and
load on the TN. The capabilities enabled by edge computing technology can be clustered
into two solution sets:
• Baseline edge computing: provides support for application hosting and user-to-
application connectivity. To that end, two network capabilities are needed. On the one
hand, application placement capability, which allows for the optimized deployment
of service applications at the target edge node, based on criteria such as resource
availability, geographical areas, cost and latency requirements. On the other hand,
edge node discovery capability, which represents the ability to identify an edge
node capable of serving application clients (running on devices). In fact, when an
application client wants to connect to an application, there is a need to discover the
optimal edge node, which is the one that runs instances of the application, has the
necessary resources (CPU, GPU, etc.) and provides the lowest network latency. For
this discovery, there exists two solutions: DNS based (network layer solution, specified
by 3GPP SA2) and device based (application layer solution, specified by 3GPP SA6).
For further information on the pros and cons of these solutions, see [49].
• Advanced edge computing: provides mobility support in edge computing scenarios.
As the user moves, it might happen that the current edge node is no longer valid,
either because of SLA violation (e.g., the latency between the UE and serving node
exceeds the maximum delay budget) or maintenance reasons (e.g., a node failure).
This situation results in the user moving to a new edge node, a process that needs to
be completed with the premise of keeping a seamless user service experience. This
requires the availability of three main network capabilities: (i) service continuity
capability; (ii) application re-location capability, i.e., to move the VM/container
hosting the application instance from the source to the target edge node; (iii) context
migration capability, i.e., to transfer the context from the stateful application towards
the target edge node.
In the medium term (i.e., test ring in the radar), as long as standards and commercial
products mature, operators are expected to enrich slicing functionality with the follow-
ing solutions:
• NWDAF: the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) [50] is a 3GPP Rel-16 func-
tion that provides network analysis information (upon request) about 5GC network
entities. It provides S-NSSAI level analytics, and hence it may become the entry point
to realize Artificial Intelligence (AI) in 5GC slices. NWDAF consumers can query for
slice load levels and slice QoE measurements, or subscribe to slice-specific notifica-
tions that provide periodic updates or anomaly alerts. As shown in Figure 4, examples
of NWDAF consumers include: the Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF), which
uses the S-NSSAI level analytics to add real-time intelligence to its slice selection
algorithms; the PCF, which makes use of NWDAF info to optimize policy decisions
on individual 5GC slices; and the NSSMF. 3GPP TS 23.288 [51] reports use cases on
the use of NWDAF to extract network analytics on a per network slice level.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 25 of 52

• Multiple slices per UE: though 3GPP Rel-15 specifications allow a device to connect
up to eight slices at the same time, thanks to the introduction of URSP (see Section 3.1)
the reality is that most Rel-15 commercial solutions do not allow this feature. The ex-
isting limitations in commercial 5G SA handheld terminals prevent an UE from being
connected to more than one slice at the same time. These limitations bet on the device’s
Operation System (OS) [29]. The device’s OS mediates between the application clients
and the device’s modem, where the URSP is installed. Operators, vendors, device
manufacturers and chipset providers are working together to find workarounds, with
de-facto solutions currently being assessed in different PoCs. Among these solutions
is the 5G slicing support in Android 12(S) devices, announced by Google in Octo-
ber 2021. (https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/telecommunications/5g-network-
slicing-with-google-android-enterprise-and-cloud, accessed on 20 October 2021).
• Secondary authentication: Network Slice Specific Authentication and Authorization
(NSSAA) attribute is defined in the GST [21] to specify whether, for a network slice,
registered devices need to be authenticated by an external AAA server (Authentication,
Authorization, Accounting server) using credentials different than the ones used for
the primary authentication. This add-on feature, first introduced in 3GPP Rel-16
specifications, is intended for those industry customers that want to perform a second
authentication over their subscribers. Operators are conducting bilateral trials with
customers to help them understand the value of integrating NSSAA in B2B category
5GC slices, especially when used in the context of PNI-NPNs. In these trials, the
operator-owned 5GC’s NSSAA Function [52] contacts with the customer-owned AAA
server via an AAA proxy. For further details on this interaction, see [10,30].
Finally, in the longer run (i.e., explore ring in the radar), the integration of Rel-17+
features into the 5GC will allow operators to unleash the full potential of 5GC slicing. In
this scouting phase, operators are have set their sights on these two featured solutions.
• Slice Roaming: operators are expected to support roaming for network slicing, at
least for network slices deployed from S-NESTs. However, this feature is still years
away from being in commercial networks, as there are technical and commercial
aspects that need to be agreed upon. The technical aspects are discussed in [53], a
GSMA document where operators have captured their priorities on slice roaming so
as to guide the specification of normative solutions in 3GPP. The commercial aspects
include charging, billing and business models that are still under discussion. Unless
all these aspects are agreed and reported, no multi-operator trials are expected shortly.
• NSACF: the Network Slice Access Control Function (NSACF) is a Rel-17 5GC function
that monitors and controls (i) the number of registred UEs per network slice, and
(ii) the number of PDU sessions per network slice [10]. With the NSACF, operators
can enforce quotas on individual slices, making sure the signalling traffic and packet
flows do not exceed the maximum slice load. NSCAF is still in stage 2 (functional
definition), so no vendor solutions are yet available. In the mean time, operators are
now trying to understand how to best apply this functionality to improve internal
network operation, and how to link them with the admission control functionality at
the NG-RAN side.

6. RAN Domain
In the RAN domain, the technology radar puts the focus on three different dimen-
sions: functionality, radio resource allocation and penetration. The functionality dimension
provides a deep dive on the applicability of open RAN principles on NR protocol stack
functions to design and configure RAN slices, going from monolithic solutions towards
more flexible, service-tailored composition patterns. The radio resource allocation dimension
discusses the availability of solutions to segregate and dispatch cell radio resources to
competing RAN slices, so that their targeted KPIs are met. Finally, the penetration dimension
refers to the penetration of RAN slicing technology within the operator’s footprint.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 26 of 52

6.1. Functionality
As noted from Figure 2, the target RAN slicing architecture lies on the possibility of
(i) having a 3-tier NR protocol stack, distributed into RU, DU and CU modules; and (ii)
provisioning a dedicated CU-UP instance to each slice, with tailored PDCP configuration
settings, so that the delay and security requirements for a given S-NSSAI can be fulfilled.
The achievement of these two milestones is mandatory for an operator to have a fully
operable RAN slicing solution, as described later on. For the sake of network efficiency (i.e.,
OPEX savings) or further service innovation (i.e., new revenue streams), the operator might
decide to enhance the baseline solution by integrating add-on features atop. One example
is the integration of the RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) [54], an optional AI-powered
functionality originally defined in the O-RAN framework [55].
In the following, we describe the stepwise journey we foresee for a future-proof
RAN slicing.
In current NSA scenarios (i.e., as-is ring in the radar), the predominant operator
scenario is a few physical gNBs providing macro coverage to city and suburban areas.
Installed in strategic geographic locations, these gNBs have inbuilt 4G/5G essential features,
including massive MIMO, Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) [56], Narrow Band IoT (NB-
IoT) and RAN sharing.
As soon as the 5G coverage footprint needs to be extended, something that has already
started with the rollout of first commercial SA networks, operators may migrate towards
gNB cloudification, in search of CAPEX reduction. In fact, with this action, the operators
are able to extend 5G coverage at large scale without the need to deploy costly physical
gNBs everywhere. This bets on different, yet intertwined solutions:
• DU-CU disaggregation, whereby gNB is functionally split into one (centralized) CU
instance and multiple (distributed) DU instances, conforming to a split 2 option. The
result of this disaggregation is that CU can be entirely implemented in software, and
therefore deployed as a VNF in any cloud environment. In fact, while individual DU
instances remain colocated with RU at cell sites, the workload corresponding to the
CU instance can be moved to the telco edge cloud.
• Control User Plane Separation, whereby the virtualized CU software is further decom-
posed into one CU-CP instance and multiple CU-UP instances. This requires a complete
reshaping of CU software design, transforming a coarse-grained (VM-based) VNF into a
number of modular (container-based) VNFs, each hosting a different instance.
These two solutions will be available in the short term, hence they are categorized in
the deploy ring of the radar.
In the medium term, once the penetration rate of cloudified gNBs is significant, the
operators may use deployed assets to have a fully operable RAN slicing environment.
This environment, which shall be compliant with the two requirements captured in the
beginning of this subsection, leverage on two solutions:
• Slice-specific vCU-UP, based on providing each RAN slice with a separate vCU-UP
instance. This solution not only ensures user plane traffic isolation across different
RAN slices [57], but also adapts/customizes the processing of DRB flows according to
the slice specific needs.
• The implementation vDUs, to allow for a 3-tier NR protocol stack. This solution is
the result of a three-step journey, whereby the DU is first separated from the RU
(introducing a fronthaul link between them, according to split option 7-2x), then
designed in software (modelled as a VNF), and finally deployed into access PoPs
(far edge sites). The ability to move DU workloads into a cloud environment is of
particular interest for large-scale slices hosting distributed eMBB services or mIoT
applications. However, this feature does not come like that alone; indeed, it needs to
be accompanied with the provision of rich-featured CPU architectures and hardware
acceleration solutions [27] in the access PoP, as outlined in Section 2.4. These assets
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 27 of 52

are aimed at reducing the impact that virtualization overheads may introduce on DU
packet-processing performance.
Industry stakeholders (including operators) have started to test these two solutions,
validating their performance and assessing their techno-economic viability in typical
scenarios where the vDU is shared across slices. In parallel, operators have launched a
new activity on RIC, pushed by the O-RAN momentum. Unlike the first workstream,
focused on searching for a baseline RAN slicing environment that can be easily scaled
and replicated across the operator’s service footprint, this new workstream has the goal of
checking how the RIC can further enhance RAN slicing features. As noted in [55], the RIC
is a non-mandatory O-RAN component consisting of two modules: (i) near-RT RIC, which
hosts ms-level RRM logic with embedded intelligence; and (ii) non-RT RIC, which provides
delay-tolerant functionality including service and policy management, RAN analytics and
AI/ML model training. Figure 12 provides details on these two modules. In this testing
phase, the focus is on the near-RT RIC (near-Real Time RIC), and in particular on the
capabilities of the E2 interface [58].
In the long run, when the commercial O-RAN solutions are relatively stable, operators
may focus on how to include the entire RIC in the day-to-day operation of RAN slices,
making it more agile and intelligent [59]. In this regard, the following solutions are currently
being explored:
• xApps. As seen from Figure 12, the near-RT RIC delivers a robust, scalable and
secure platform for xApp hosting. These xApps are third party control applications
that complement traditional RRM functionality, by bringing advanced algorithms
applicable to real-time use cases, including QoS/QoE optimization, per-UE controlled
load balancing, traffic steering and seamless handover control. Operators together
with third party developers are exploring the possibility of implementing slice-specific
RRM procedures through xApps, in order to decouple life cycles of slicing related
innovation (e.g., 4/6-month release cycle) from CU-CP hosted RRM policies (e.g.,
1/2-year release cycle).
• Non-RT RIC. The non-RT RIC (non-Real Time RIC) will be the main driver for AI-
powered RAN slicing. This module will host and manage all AI/ML models that
will later be pushed into the near-RT RIC down to the individual RAN slices. In the
exploratory phase, where the operators are now, the main entry barrier they have
encountered is its complex integration. In fact, the non-RT RIC needs to communicate
with (i) the RU and the vEMS, using O1 interface [60]; (ii) the near-RT RIC, using A1
reference point [61]. In addition, it needs to interact with 3GPP management system,
something that today is still under discussion in O-RAN community.
Figure 12 illustrates the integration of all the O-RAN components into the network
slicing system architecture, including the reference points (E2, O1 and A1 interfaces) across
them. To illustrate the information exchanged between these interfaces, we propose an
example of the use of the RIC to make an AI assisted resource control for RAN slice SLA
assurance. The logic of this resource control is hosted by xApps. Further details on this
example can be found at the end of Section 6.2, once the details on radio resource allocation
are explained.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 28 of 52

Non-Real-Time (Non-RT) RIC

rAPP-1 rAPP-2 rAPP-n
…
RAN Mgmt • Long term monitoring of RAN slices
Domain performance
AI model Policy Enrichment
A1 A1 • Retrieval of target RAN slice SLA
mgmt Mgmt Info Mgmt
requirements (SliceProfile)
Data analytics; AI/ML training • Non-RT O1 re-configuration / A1
policies for RAN slice assurance

A1 ENRICHMENT INFO
• Info for UE/group of A1
UEs/applications
A1 POLICY Near-Real-Tme (Near-RT) RIC
• Optimized policies for dynamic O1
• Near-RT monitoring of RAN slices
SLA assurance xAPP-1 xAPP-2 xAPP-n
… performance
• Optimized RAN (E2) actions to
O1 REPORT O1 achieve RAN slice SLA based on O1
• Counters/KPIs from near-RT Messaging infrastructure configuration, A1 policy and E2
RIC, vEMS and RU Conflict xApp reports
O1 CONFIGURATION Database
mitigation Subscription
• Default/static/non-RT
configuration
O1 CU-CP
vEMS
RRC
E2 E2 E2 REPORT
• RAN slice fine-grained statistics
E2 CONTROL/POLICY
RU DU CU-UP • RAN slice assurance actions
PDCP/SDAP • RAN slice resource
allocation/prioritization

O1/Proprietary CU-UP
High PHY
Low PHY

MAC

RLC
RF

PDCP/SDAP

CU-UP
PDCP/SDAP

Figure 12. AI assisted RAN slice resource control.

6.2. Radio Resource Allocation

In this dimension, we encounter a number of solutions in the gNB scheduler enabling
RAN slicing. These solutions are based on two different yet complementary mechanisms:
priority scheduling and radio resource partitioning.
On the one hand, priority scheduling is a mechanism used for service differentiation
between RAN slices when they all compete for the same PRBs. This corresponds to best
effort slices, as captured in Table 2. The service differentiation here is achieved with the
definition of multiple DRB profiles, each featured with a different scheduling priority, and
their allocation to existing RAN slices. This approach allows giving one or more RAN
slices a preferential treatment with relative priority to others. The policy for DRB profile
allocation is based on QoS criteria, though other business-wise criteria can be applied (e.g.,
based on platinum/gold/silver subscription).
On the other hand, radio resource partitioning is a mechanism based on PRB reservation.
Unlike priority scheduling, radio resource partitioning allows segregating cell resources
across different RAN slices. Here, resource segregation consists of allocating separate
PRB chunks to the DRBs associated to these slices. For this PRB allocation, the gNB
scheduler configures the resource quotas per slice. As shown in Figure 6, the operator can
configure up to three resource quotas in a slice, namely, maximum slice quota (mandatory),
minimum slice quota (mandatory), and dedicated minimum slice quota (optional). For the
definition of these per slice quotas, the operator makes use of RRMPolicy class defined
in the 5G NRM, by applying the RRMPolicyRatio attributes (i.e., RRMPolicyMaxRatio,
RRMPolicyMinRatio, RRMPolicyDedicatedRadio) to the {S-NSSAI, PLMN ID} tuple the
RAN slice is associated with. For further information on this mapping, see clause 4.3.36
from 3GPP TS 28.541 [15].
Table 3 provides a comparative analysis between priority scheduling and radio re-
source partitioning. While it may seem logical to define PRB reservation for each slice
supported at the RAN, this is, in practice, suboptimal. There is a trade-off in performance
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 29 of 52

between the gain from dedicating resources to specific slice services and the overhead in
maintaining numerous resource partitions. The balance is to keep sufficient PRB chunks
to guarantee resource isolation per RAN slice when needed, while not impacting radio
performance due to excessive partitioning.

Table 3. A comparative analysis of RAN slicing mechanisms.

Topic Priority Scheduling Radio Resource Partitioning

All slices share resources, and the Reserve dedicated resources and
slice SLA is guaranteed by increa- prioritized resources for specific
Solution sing the scheduling priority of slice(s) to ensure that devices in the
devices that have not reached the slices have sufficient available at
minimum guaranteed rate any time
Best effort SLA guarantee: when Customers get accurate SLA
Guarantee the cell is congested, the SLA of guarantee
some slices may not be guaranteed

Resource sharing between slices Hard isolation of resources between

Isolation that can only provide limited soft slices avoids mutual influence across
isolation with different priorities slices and provides an isolation effect
similar to that of dedicated frequency
Scenario B2C market slicing B2B market slicing

In the following, we describe the solutions that we foresee from these two RAN slicing
mechanisms, and that are illustrated in the radar shown in Figure 9.
In today’s dominant NSA scenarios (as-is ring in the radar), the only possible solution
for RAN slicing is QCI Priority Scheduling, based on giving a preferential treatment
to those DRBs associated with top-priority services. The priority of a service depends
on the QoS parameters associated with the service flows, with a QCI as key parameter,
complemented with other QoS related info (i.e., GBR + MBR values if service flows convey
GBR traffic, AMBR values if service flows convey non-GBR traffic). Upon computation
on the EPC side, the priorities of different services are sent to the gNB, which uses them
to define corresponding DRB profiles. The number of DRB profiles available in current
production networks is rather low; the reason is a coarse-grained design of DRBs, and that
only few of them convey prioritized traffic.
As we move towards the rollout of the first 5G SA networks, new priority scheduling
solutions are appearing:
• 5QI Priority Scheduling. This solution is equivalent to the QCI Priority Scheduling,
but using 5GC, which provides much more granular QoS control than the EPC. The
fact that (i) the 3GPP 5G QoS framework allows one slice to convey multiple QoS
flows, each featured with a specific 5QI, and (ii) the DRB profiles are computed based
on 5QI, make it possible to have intra-slice service differentiation. Figure 13 illustrates
an example of how this solution works.
• Relative Priority Scheduling, which is an evolution of the previous solution. This
evolution is based on enriching DRB profile characterization with additional con-
figurable settings, including scheduling weight and scheme, among others. These
settings, listed in Figure 13 with the optional “(O)” tag, allow the gNB scheduler to re-
solve conflicting situations that are beyond the capabilities of 5QI priority scheduling.
One example is when QoS flows from different slices have the same 5QI, but there
is a need for preferential treatment of one of these slices. In such a case, scheduling
weight can be used, as elaborated in the top-right corner of Figure 13.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 30 of 52

For UEs, service differentiation per slice per

PLMN can be achieved
Multiple services associated with the same 5QI can be
mapped to different slices (and/or different PLMN), allowing
mIoT Weight=2 5QI9
each servic to have different scheduling weight
PLMN ID = 1
Slice
Weight=10 5QI6 S-NSSAI = {2,SD}
UE
Different DRB profiles can be

DRB profile selection

Core Network configured for non-GBR and GBR
eMBB PLMN ID = 1
PLMN 1 bearers per gNB
Slice Weight=30 5QI6
S-NSSAI = {1,SD}
UE
DBR profile is selected from the
tuple [S-NSSAI, PLMN ID, 5QI]
Weight=25 5QI9 during PDU Session Resource
uRLLC PLMN ID = 1 setup procedure
Slice Weight=40 5QI S-NSSAI = {3,SD}
UE Scheme = conservative 84 Each DRB profile contains
operator configurable settings:
• Scheduling priority (M)
eMBB PLMN ID = 2 • Scheduling weight (O)
Weight=10 5QI6 Core Network
Slice S-NSSAI = 1 PLMN 2 • Scheme (O)
UE • Other: DSCP mapping, RLC
and PDCP parameters, etc..
gNB

Priority configuration
PLMN ID 1 1 1 2
S-NSSAI 1 2 3 X
Priority
5QI 9 6 6 9 84 6
High low
Scheduling priority 4 2 1 3
[1] [4]

Figure 13. Priority Scheduling.

These two solutions build up the RAN slicing suite that operators have started to
deploy, and may be operationally ready in the short term. However, with sights already set
on evolving slicing features in the medium term, operators are also testing other solutions:
• Delay controlled Priority Scheduling. This solution consists of enriching gNB schedul-
ing logic with the adaptive managed latency concept. It allows providing better expe-
rience to Rel-16 services, mostly interactive services that require high data rate and
low latency communications. The adaptive managed latency concept represents the
ability to provide bounded and steady low latency for these services, by coupling gNB
scheduler and application in a feedback loop with dynamic rate adaptation signalled
by the service application. This coupling can be enforced using either vendor-specific
mechanisms or standard frameworks, such as Low Latency, Low Loss, or Scalable
Throughput (L4S) [62]. Figure 14 depicts how L4S congestion marking and feed-
back can be applied for gNB scheduling. Note that this Delay Controlled Priority
Scheduling solution (application layer rate adaptation) is complementary to Relative
Priority Scheduling (network layer service differentiation), and both can be used
simultaneously.
• Hard Radio Resource Partitioning. This is the first solution from the radio resource
partitioning category. For the PRB allocation, this solution assumes that individual
slices are only configured with dedicated resources, without prioritized resources. To
achieve this, the operator sets the same value for the dedicated minimum slice quota
(RRMPolicyDedicatedRatio) and the minimum slice quota (RRMPolicyMinRatio).
From the set of flavours tabulated in Table 2, one can note that the RAN slices resulting
from this solution are compliant with the “dedicated slice-profile 1” settings. This
flavor provides isolation and secure resources in high load conditions, at the cost of
poor multiplexing gains. The reason is that dedicated resources of a slice cannot be
used by others, even though the slice resource usage is below the dedicated minimum
slice quota.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 31 of 52

Figure 14. Feedback loop for delay controlled priority scheduling, with in-band L4S.

Finally, in the long run, we can find fully-blown RAN slicing solutions. These solutions,
listed below, are years away from being commercially available; in fact, they are still taking
shape in the reference standards: 3GPP and O-RAN Alliance. Therefore, they are captured
in the explore ring in the radar.
• Static (Policy-based) Flexible Radio Resource Partitioning. It allows for defining pri-
oritized resources per slice, a feature which was disabled in the Hard Radio Resource
Partitioning. With this new option, RAN slices can now be configured according to
“dedicated slice-profile 2” and “prioritized slice” settings, as shown in Table 2. The def-
inition of prioritized resources per slice boosts resource efficiency, at the cost of making
gNB scheduler logic much more complex, with a larger number of decision-making
variables that need to be computed in real-time.
It is important to note that gNB scheduler can work with both hard and flexible radio
resource partitioning solutions, as depicted in Figure 15. This example shows that the
gNB is configured to serve four slices from two different PLMNs: PLMN#1, hosting
mIoT, eMBB and uRLLC slices, and PLMN#2, hosting another eMBB slice. Looking
at the slice specific quotas, one can note that the uRLLC slice is scheduled with hard
approaches. For the remaining slices, flexible resource radio resource partitioning is
applied, with the mIoT slice configured with “dedicated slice-profile 2” flavor and the
eMBB ones configured with “prioritized slice” flavors.
• Dynamic (AI-assisted) Flexible Radio Resource Partitioning. This solution takes
the previous solution to the next level, with the possibility of changing slice resource
quotas over time, depending on collected performance metrics. To cope with this
dynamism, operators need to take humans out of the loop, replacing them with
novel AI-assisted artifacts enabling closed-loop automation. The xApps hosted by the
near-RT RIC are perfect candidates for this role; indeed, they can provide agility and
context-awareness in the decisions of changing resource quotas [63].
Figure 12 illustrates an example of the usability of near-RT RIC for real-time resource
control of operative RAN slices. As seen, the near-RT-RIC makes use of E2 interface to
interact with associated DU, CU-UP and CU-CP instances, for both monitoring (E2 RE-
PORT) and configuration management (E2 CONTROL/POLICY) actions. The governance
of these actions lies on xApps. The logic of these xApps can be assisted with AI/ML mod-
els, which are made available for consumption by the non-RT RIC using the A1 interface.
By comparing collected metrics against AI/ML models, the xApps can make real-time
decisions on quota changes, enforcing them in corresponding CU-UP instances. Though
the ultimate invocation and execution of AI/ML models lies on xApps, this cannot be
done without the Non-RT RIC, which plays a key role in this workflow; indeed, non-RT
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 32 of 52

RIC is responsible for the management of individual AI/ML model (e.g., AI/ML model
deployment, configuration, performance evaluation, termination, validation and testing).

Parameters are cell specifc, which means that the same slice
could have different quotas in different cells

Max
100%
PRB Scheduling
Shared Resource Pool:
used up to the Maximum f
Quota of each slice
Max

All PRBs
Max
Cell resources

Prioritized Resource Pool:

Defined by the sum of Max
Minimum Slice Quota Min
Min Min

Ded Min t
Dedicated Resource Pool:
defined by the sum of Ded
Minimum Slice Quota Ded Min PLMN #1: mIoT PLMN #1: uRLLC
PLMN#1: eMBB PLMN #2: eMBB
0%
mIoT slice eMBB slice uRLLC slice eMBB slice

PLMN #1 PLMN #2

Figure 15. Radio Resource Partitioning.

6.3. Penetration
In this section, we provide a description of the penetration path we foresee for network
slicing in cell sites. For this exercise, it is important to take into account the environment
setup. In this regard, we consider three phases: early introduction (phase 1), full adoption
on standalone private 5G networks (phase 2) and full adoption in public 5G networks
(phase 3).
The phase 1 covers the as-is and deploy rings of the radar. In this phase, it is assumed
a baseline RAN slicing solution, consisting of applying 5QI priority scheduling (see radio
resource allocation dimension) over cloud NG-RAN scenarios (see functionality dimen-
sions), with no mobility support. This setup has minimal impact on production networks,
without compromising backwards compatibility, and therefore constitutes a good candi-
date for early introduction in the PLMN. The integration of baseline RAN slicing in first
SA networks ensures QoS-based service differentiation on RAN side, which is essential for
operators to start commercializing 5GC Type A2 slices for B2C market (see Figure 11).
However, for more elaborated setups leveraging open RAN principles, the above
rationale is no longer valid. The major changes that these setups bring in RAN planning
and configuration patterns prevent their large-scale introduction in today’s commercial
networks, which account for a large percentage of legacy RAN assets. Instead, operators
may initially choose to start testing them RAN slicing on private networks (phase 2) before
moving to macro cells (phase 3).
The phase 2 covers the deploy, test and explore rings of the radar. In this phase, the op-
erator may integrate RAN slicing solutions only in greenfield environments, on-premises,
creating isolated islands of private 5G adoption. This setup constitutes a perfect niche
for the operators to start commercializing their innovative RAN slicing solutions towards
B2B customers, as the radio resource allocation mechanisms and O-RAN components
become available. These solutions can be used either (i) to provide traffic isolation across
on-premises customer services, or (ii) to provide the customer with a guaranteed SLA
between the device and 5GC. In the second case, RAN slicing is used in conjunction with
the B2B category 5GC slices to provide PNI-NPN services.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 33 of 52

Finally, there is the phase 3, spanning across the test and explore rings of the radar.
This phase 3 consists of applying the lessons learnt in phase 2 to macro cells. In fact, the
trials in phase 2 will serve the operator as a playground before moving to the PLMN, where
UE density and traffic patterns are radically different, and where mobility events now need
to be taken into account. To facilitate this transition, a three-step journey is foreseen:
• PLMN, single-slice TAI. The operators will start to replicate the trials in specific
tracking areas, with their cells configured with one single S-NSSAI.
• PLMN, multiple-slice TAI. The same solution as the previous one, but configuring
all the cells from the same tracking area with two or more S-NSSAIs.
• PLMN, large-scale. The lessons learnt from the small-scale deployments allow im-
proving RAN slicing before massive adoption in the PLMN, where more complex
problems on capacity planning and mobility management may appear.

7. TN Domain
In the TN domain, the technology radar requires the analysis from two separate
dimensions: transport technologies and transport SDN fabric. The transport technologies
dimension captures the protocol encapsulation and data plane solutions across the different
network segments. On the other hand, the transport SDN fabric dimension refers to the
control and management plane aspects, discussing the application of programmability and
automation through SDN.
These two dimensions are not coupled but complementary, in the sense they can
evolve at a different pace and they do not necessarily need to be used together. The trans-
port technology dimension includes all the Layer 1/2/3 solutions that allow segregating
connectivity resources and enforcing traffic separation at the WAN infrastructure, therefore
enabling TN slicing realization. The sole use of these transport technologies is enough to
have a sliced WAN infrastructure, but not to get it provisioned and operated in a dynamic
way. The latter would require implementing programmability and automation capabili-
ties atop these technologies, something that can only be brought by the SDN paradigm.
The complementarity of the transport SDN fabric lies in the ability to operate with these
technologies using a set of SDN controllers instead of traditional, siloed TN management
systems (which typically lead to rather static, manual configurations). This requires equip-
ping these SDN controllers with programmatic interfaces on the southbound side, towards
the underlying technology devices. These interfaces shall be developed in such a manner
that SDN controllers can inject configuration actions and retrieve collected data following
a model-based approach.

7.1. Transport Technologies

The system architecture represented in Figure 2 shows the entities on the path for an
E2E slice, assuming a 3-tier deployment for the gNB: RU, DU and CU-UP. As seen, the user
plane from the device to the application includes the following TN segments: fronthaul
(O-RAN fronthaul interface), midhaul (3GPP F1-U interface), backhaul (3GPP N3 interface)
and DN (3GPP N6 interface). The F1-U and N3 interfaces use GTP-U to transport packets
(IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet or unstructured) in the PDU session established between the UE and
the DN. The fronthaul interface carries the radio frames in the form of In-Phase (I) and
Quadrature (Q) samples, using eCPRI [64] encapsulation over Ethernet or UDP over IP.
The mission of TN slicing is to implement slicing-featured capabilities across all these
connectivity segments, ensuring that the SLA requirements are met not only at the 3GPP
network function layer, but also at the transport underlay. Examples of these capabilities
include guaranteed QoS (e.g., bandwidth reservation, upper latency bounds, controller
delay variation), isolation, protection and reliability (e.g., disjoint routes).
As outlined in Section 2.3 and shown in Figure 8, there exist multiple networking
solutions that can be used for the provision of these capabilities, ranging from soft slicing
to hard slicing, with some trade-off solutions in between (i.e., hybrid slicing). Next, we
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 34 of 52

present the journey we foresee towards the realization of an end-to-end TN slicing, based
on a step-wise integration of different transport technologies into carrier networks.
Today’s scenarios are based on 5G NSA, where the slice data path only includes two
segments: backhaul segment (between the physical gNB and S/P-GW) and DN segment
(between S/P-GW and application). Typical implementations for these scenarios bet on
the use of traditional L2/L3 overlay solutions, mainly VPN techniques. Layer 2 VPN
techniques are, for example, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), which sets up a Ethernet-
based communication over MPLS tunnels, or Virtual Leased Line (VLL), which emulates
a pipeline between two given endpoints. Layer 3 VPNs can be realized, for example, via
Virtual Private Routed Networks (VPRN), featuring MPLS-based VPNs. Two main reasons
explain the preference for these technologies. On the one hand, they do not have an impact
in the underlay. Taking into account the brownfield design of today’s transport networks, it
is natural for operators to reuse as much as possible existing overlay technologies, especially
if they are carrier-grade and widely available along the operator footprint. On the other
hand, they are cost-efficient, with a performance that is enough to satisfy the transport
requirements of NSA slices.
In the short term, early B2C slicing offering will require evolving transport networks
with different solutions such as the listed below.
• DiffServ Code Point (DSCP). The integration of 5GC will lead to a change in the
backhaul segment, now based in the N3 interface. Additionally, the DU-CU disag-
gregation will produce the F1 interface for the mid-haul segment. With this scenario,
the setup is as follows: a GTP tunnel encapsulating user packets with slicing infor-
mation captured in the {PLMN ID, S-NSSAI, 5QI} triplet transverses the backhaul
and midhaul segments. Since the IP underlay across these segments is not able to
interpret these 3GPP signalling identifiers, it is not possible for the border router
(see Figure 7A) to apply the constraints represented by this tuple. In this regard, the
UPF and RAN shall perform transport level packet marking in downlink and uplink,
respectively, by setting the DSCP in the outer IP header [65]. This information is used
by the corresponding border routers in the IP underlay to differentiate traffic from
different slices [66,67].
• Segment Routing (SR), and its use across backhaul and midhaul segments. Apart
from the rich built-in features (e.g., highly scalable, responsive, programmability) [68],
what makes SR [69] an ideal technology option for the IP underlay is that it can be
used with both the MPLS forwarding plane (SR-MPLS) and the IPv6 forwarding plane
(SRv6). Examples of realization of slicing in SR networks can be found in [70,71]. The
basis of this realization lies in the ability of SR to encapsulate additional information
for discriminating traffic associated with different slices [72].
The solutions explained so far, belonging to the as-is and deploy rings in the technol-
ogy radar, are part of the soft slicing category presented in Section 2.
In the medium term (the testing ring in the radar), as novel B2B offerings come into
service portfolio and the slicing requirements get burdened, the capabilities offered by soft
slicing solutions are not enough. In this regard, operators have started to evaluate new
technologies, working on three main directions:
• Hard slicing. In this workstream, the operators are focused on trialing technologies
like Flexible Ethernet (Flex-E), Flex-O and DWDM. These technologies are used to
realize the concept of isolated traffic flows operating on common links that avoid neg-
atively influencing the performance of each other in case of congestion. In particular,
Flex-E [35] bets on the principle of calendar-based channelization, which consists of
bundling or dividing physical Ethernet interfaces into multiple Ethernet hard pipes
based on timeslot scheduling. The work in [73] gives further details on how Flex-E
technology might be used to implement hard slicing. Flex-O, described in the ITU-T
G.709.1/Y.1331.1 recommendation [74], provides Optical Transport Network (OTN)
interfaces with comparable functionality to that of Flex-E based Ethernet interfaces.
Finally, DWDM can be used for physical resource separation at wavelength level.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 35 of 52

Adaptive transponders over Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM), spectrum

fragmentation and Optical Cross-Connect (OXC), and Reconfigurable Optical Add-
Drop Multiplexer (ROADM) are optical network virtualization techniques that can be
exploited for network slicing, so that wavelengths can be right-sized for the specific
requirements of every slice.
• Deterministic techniques. Flex-O, Flex-E and DWDM are ideal for providing guar-
antees for throughput and delay, which will be a common pattern across most of the
uRLLC scenarios. Apart from these hard slicing technologies, in order to enable deter-
ministic real-time performance in transport networks, novel full-stack approaches are
also proposed in the underlay, with techniques such as those outlined by the IEEE TSN
Project Group (layer 2 aspects) and the IETF DetNet Working Group (layer 3 aspects).
On the one hand, TSN is a set of IEEE 802.1 amendments that enable determinism of
time-critical traffic flows, even in cases where traffic flows with different statistical
characteristics are multiplexed. The use of slicing in TSN-based networks is discussed
in [75]. On the other hand, DetNet defines a set of techniques to extend deterministic
behavior to in-slice layer 3 paths. These techniques span from explicit routes, packet
replication and elimination, to congestion protection with E2E synchronization [76].
• SD-WAN. It is not uncommon that B2B customers contracting 5GC slices will request
QoS-assured connectivity across their enterprise sites. This setup may result in a multi-
site B2B slice, typical in PNI-NPN scenarios. In this case, Software Defined WAN
(SD-WAN) [77] is a good candidate solution for the DN segment. Some operators
have started to execute PoCs in this direction, e.g., [78].
Finally, the focus in the longer term is on making O-RAN fronthaul interface slicing-
aware [59]. Unlike the midhaul and backhaul segment (3GPP interfaces), where slicing
information is injected with the the EP_Transport IOC (see Figure 7B), the fronthaul segment
(O-RAN interface) does not currently support slicing features. Figure 16 shows the current
protocol structure for the O-RAN fronthaul interface. As seen, the stack allows DU and
RU to exchange (i) signalling information; (ii) user plane information, based on frequency-
domain IQ samples; (iii) timing and synchronization information; and (iv) management
plane information. However, no slicing related data is yet supported. The challenge that
industry shall solve is how to encapsulate S-NSSAI (3GPP signalling information) in the
O-RAN fronthaul interface, considering that this interface is out of the 3GPP specifications.
O-RAN Working Group 4 is working towards this direction, though normative solutions
(and therefore commercial solutions) are still far away.

Figure 16. O-RAN FH interface protocol structure.

7.2. Transport SDN Fabric

The use of a transport SDN fabric brings automatic network control and programmatic
capabilities. These features are key for the operators in their need to cope with the agility
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 36 of 52

and management complexity of slicing in their transport networks, with multiple vendor
and technology solutions underneath.
As of today, the scope of SDN technology has been circumscribed inside the data
center, using it to simplify the management of internal connectivity as the adoption of
cloud solutions is consolidated. However, the applicability of SDN into transport networks
is a completely radical approach, with the use of new protocols and different model-driven
operational practices quite tied to the specificities of the WAN technologies present in
today’s carrier facilities. Making transport SDN a reality is not an easy task. In this regard,
many efforts have been made over the past few years in this direction, with telco industry
actors working out promising but misaligned solutions. Proof of this is the large number
of architecture frameworks defined so far, e.g., [79–81].
It is now time to move forward and make progress. This requires the definition of a
common strategy to reduce and select the most suitable standards to unify disparate SDN
solutions into a single E2E, open transport SDN architecture. The preferred architecture op-
tion is shown in Figure 17. Originally proposed by Telefónica with the iFUSION brand [82],
this architecture follows a hierarchical model, with specific domain controllers per technol-
ogy domain (IP/MPLS, optical/DWDM and microwave/backhaul) and an overarching
Software-Defined Transport Network controller (SDTN controller). This two-layer control
architecture has become the reference framework for operators worldwide, as echoed in
the white paper published by Telecom Infra Project’s Open Optical and Packet Transport
(OOPT) project group [83].

Service oriented
RESTCONF/

NBI interface
YANG

Technology-agnostic
SDTN Controller

TN Management Domain
Mapper Module E2E Transport Service Abstraction
Transport
Network Slice
Realizer Module E2E Transport Network Control
Controller

SBI SBI SBI Network oriented

RESTCONF/

interface
YANG

Technology-specific
NBI NBI NBI

Microwave Domain IP domain Optics Domain

SDN Controller SDN Controller SDN Controller

SBI SBI SBI Device oriented

gRPC/NETCON

interface
F/YANG

Config/operational
PoP #x PoP #y parameters and telemetry
IP/MPLS collection
network

MW Network
OTN/WDM
network

Figure 17. Transport SDN architecture.

The benefits of the targeted SDN architecture lie in the system design, built upon
three principles.
• Technology domain controllers. The idea is to separate the control per technology con-
cerns, then drive the different particularities of each technology with specific solutions
suited to them. This separation of concerns also enables a higher scalability of the
solution; in fact, in case a transport segment is divided among different administrative
domains, multiple domain SDN controllers for the relevant transport segment might
be included in the hierarchy, in a flexible way.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 37 of 52

• Technology-agnostic SDTN controllers, abstracting the complexity below by offering

a single entry point for programmability of the overall transport network. This
entry point is accessed by the TN management domain’s consumers, which includes
management functions from the rest of the management domains (see Figure 2).
• Seamless integration of network slicing features. These capabilities are to be provided
by the Transport Network Slice Controller (T-NSC), which is an add-on component of
the SDTN controller, as shown in Figure 17. This ensures that the SDTN controller can
work with slicing and non-slicing services, by simply making use or bypassing the
T-NSC, respectively.
In the following, we describe the journey towards the goal scenario: having the E2E,
open transport SDN architecture depicted in Figure 17 up and running in commercial
networks. We follow a bottom-approach for describing the approach taken.
In the lower part of the architecture, we see the device oriented interface, which
corresponds to the SouthBound Interface (SBIs) of the individual domain SDN controllers.
As with any programmatic interface, the SBI is composed of selecting a protocol to transfer
the data, and YANG data models to define how the message is formed. In all the domain
SDN controllers, the SBI uses NETCONF [84] protocol, the main protocol for device
management operations. Further details are provided below:
• IP domain SDN controller: SBI. For the IP/MPLS segment, the solution is based on
a single multi-vendor IP domain controller, charged with configuring the Layer-2
and Layer-3 network elements. The management of this equipment is done through
the SBI, which bets on declarative configuration and model-driven operations using
device YANG models, such as those those available in OpenConfig [85]. In addition
to NETCONF/YANG, other protocols are considered in the SBI of an IP domain
SDN controller, including (i) BGP-LS, to retrieve link-node topology of the IP/MPLS
networks [86]; (ii) PCEP, to support Traffic Engineering [87]; and (iii) gRPC, to collect
monitoring data [88].
• Optics domain SDN controller: SBI. For the optical segments, there is no way on
having ’one-size-fits-all’ SDN controller. The reason is that transport DWDM net-
works are highly implementation dependent, with no practical interoperability at
optical level. Having a programmatic NETCONF/YANG based SBI would require
the disaggregation of existing optical transceivers and line-side components.
• Microwave (MW) domain SDN controller: SBI. Though the number of hops from
end links to the fiber aggregation point is progressively shorted (especially with the
new Integrated Access Backhaul solutions [89]), it is still common for operators to
have multi-vendor aggregation paths in their MW underlay. The operation and con-
figuration of these paths is rather manual and static, using the proprietary interfaces
from vendor-specific network management systems. The goal of this workstream
is to avoid the integration complexity and scalability burdens of this approach (i.e.,
with OSS needed to maintain multiple interfaces) by introducing a SDN controller,
which is a vendor-agnostic configurator of the MW network. To that end, standard
communication protocol and YANG device models are being considered on the SBI,
turning it into a programmatic interface.
Going up in the architecture, we arrive to the network oriented interface, which
permits the invocation of service fitting each technology underneath. This interface corre-
sponds to the NorthBound Interface (NBIs) of the per-technology domain SDN controllers.
The Domain SDN controller: NBI solution allows each controller to offer the following
capabilities to the SDTN controller: (i) a vendor-agnostic provisioning interface, to request
for the creation/deletion/modification of connectivity services; (ii) per-OSI layer topology
and network inventory information; and (iii) active monitoring of network status, e.g.,
traffic statistics and event notifications. Unlike the SBIs, built with NETCONF operating
over device YANG models, the NBIs bet on the use of RESTCONF [90] with network YANG
models. On the one hand, the choice of RESTCONF (HTTP-based protocol) permits the
reuse of all tooling around the REST interface, which is today the industry norm for non-
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 38 of 52

device oriented configuration management operations. On the other hand, the network
YANG models provide abstract representation of relationships between multiple devices,
including topology and connectivity services. Table 4 captures the network YANG models
that are for consideration at the domain controller NBIs.

Table 4. Overview of network YANG models for the NBI of per-technology domain SDN controllers.

Domain
NBI Models Description
Controller
L3SM [91] These models are used for the provisioning of
L2SM [92] L2/L3 connectivity services.They describe a
L3NM [93] VPN service from the customer (LxSM) or
L2NM [94] network operator (LxNM) viewpoint
IP controller
These models allow to manipulate Traffic
TE [95] Engineering (TE) tunnels. There exist extensions
TE Topology [96] to work with a desired technology (e.g., MPLS
RSVP-TE tunnels, Segment Routing paths).
It is the model with higher market adoption. It
includes technology-specific information from
Optics controller T-API [97]
each transport layer, including DSR/Ethernet,
OTN/ODU and photonics media.
This repository captures the set of models for
Microwave OpenBackhaul the microwave segment. They are extensions
controller model set [98] from those captured in ONF Core Information
Model [99].

Finally, consuming these NBIs, there is the SDTN controller. This controller orches-
trates the domain specific capabilities to provide real-time control of multi-layer and
multi-domain transport network resources. The efforts on this workstream go in three
directions:
• E2E SDN controller: internal logic. The focus here is on the implementation of the
E2E Transport Network Control block of the SDTN controller. The scope of this mod-
ule can be summarized into five functionalities: (i) E2E control across the different
domains, by coordinating the disparate technologies through their corresponding
SDN domain controllers; (ii) per-layer E2E visualization, i.e., per-layer topology com-
position; (iii) stateful control of provisioned network services; (iv) multi-layer Path
Computation Engine (PCE), which has the role of computing paths across multiple
technologies based on the per-layer topology composition; and (v) service binding to
transport resources, which enables the controller to obtain the best Traffic Engineer-
ing (TE) connections for a given transport connectivity service. An example of the
functionality described in (v) is as follows: for a VPN having certain bandwidth and
latency contraints, compute the set of Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
• E2E SDN controller: NBI. The focus here is on the E2E transport network abstraction
block, in charge of exposing an abstracted topology view of the network resources
and the available set of network services to SDTN consumers through an unified NBI.
There is no solution yet in the standards, although quite close cooperation between
Telecom Infra Project’s OOPT [83] and IETF’s TEAS [100] exists in this regard. Ongoing
discussions reveal the idea to use LxSM models (see Table 4) as a starting point for the
NBI implementation.
• Slicing-aware E2E SDN controller. This consists of incorporating the T-NSC, which
will have the awareness of slicing at the transport layer. Though there is not yet an
common view of what T-NSC represents, the telco industry agrees on the need (i) to
align the T-NSC concept with the IETF Slice Controller developed by the IETF TEAS’s
network slice design team [101], and (ii) to implement the T-NSC as an additional
component of the SDTN controller. For the first point, the focus is to align the T-
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 39 of 52

NSC with the use cases [102] and YANG network models [103] worked out for the
IETF Slice Controller. For the second point, we foresee a solution similar to the
one represented in Figure 17. As seen, the T-NSC might be built out of two separate
modules: the mapper and the realizer. The mapper module is responsible for collecting
the customer-facing view of the TN slice for further processing the TN slice request.
Thus, this module would integrate the customer-facing view on the provider view
for triggering configuration, control and management actions. On the other hand,
there is the realizer module, which is in charge of coordinating different actions on
a number of domain SDN controllers for effectively creating the TN slice, according
to the original customer request. Integrated in the E2E Transport Network Control
Abstraction block (see Figure 17), this module would manage the workflows for the
TN slice provision, as well as for its life cycle.
Putting all the discussed solutions in the technology radar shown in Figure 9, we
observe the following:
• The deploy ring includes IP domain SDN controller: SBI and optics domain SDN
controller: SBI solutions. With the emergence of the first Rel-15 commercial networks,
some operators have recently started the deployment of SDN technology in transport
networks, although not at large scale yet. For now, it is limited to IP/MPLS and
optical/DWDM segments, and highly coupled with specific use cases.
• The test ring covers MW domain SDN controller: SBI, Domain SDN controller:
NBI and E2E SDN controller: internal logic solutions. The operators are currently
conducting trials on features from these three solutions, which are expected to be
available in the medium term.
• The explore ring captures the E2E SDN controller: NBI solution (for the integration
of transport SDN fabric with the rest of OSS assets) and the Slicing-aware E2E SDN
controller solution (to integrate the slice semantics in the transport SDN fabric).
According to the above rationale, it is clear that to get the targeted transport SDN
architecture up and running in carrier networks, operators need to follow a staged approach
where the full, E2E integration of slicing features constitutes the final stage. However, this
does not mean we cannot have TN slicing meanwhile; indeed, as outlined in Section 7.1,
there are multiple transport technologies available for slicing realization. What this really
means is that the operator may not be able to have automation and programmability
capabilities in the short and medium term when allocating and operating transport slices.
The lack of SDN may force the operator to go for static provisioning and management
operations, from the E2E management domain to technology-specific management systems,
using traditional Command Line Interface (CLI) solutions with ad-hoc extensions to avoid
vendor lock-in.

8. OSS Domain
Finally, for the OSS domain, the technology radar addresses two different dimensions:
OAM and capability exposure. On the one hand, the OAM dimension refers to the set of
activities related to network slice life cycle management. On the other hand, the capability
exposure dimension touches on the need for providers to make network slice capabilities
available for consumption to B2B customers, through easy-to-use service APIs.

8.1. OAM
The life cycle of a network slice is articulated into four different phases: preparation
(slice design, slice on-boarding and network set-up), commissioning (slice instantiation
and configuration), operation (slice activation, modification, reporting/supervision and
de-activation) and decommissioning (slice termination) [17]. The operator’s main role is to
manage the life cycle of all slices running in the network. In this endeavor, the operator
makes use of OAM tools available in the OSS layer, as illustrated in Figure 2.
This section outlines the main solutions that enable the OSS to conduct network slice
life cycle management. Their position in the radar (see Figure 9) makes it clear that the
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 40 of 52

trend is to evolve towards a fully digital OSS stack, wherein design, data management,
assurance and orchestration processes all need to be aligned and integrated across phys-
ical, virtual and cloud assets. This journey needs to be accompanied with new levels
of automation, extending them further up the stack, into the E2E service and network
management domain.
The first stop of the journey is the as-is ring of the radar. Today’s OSS consists of
isolated, monolithic systems passing through specialized applications that require complex
integration. In addition, automation is quite limited (only present in specific parts of the
OSS, and not covering all the management domains) and with many silos (part of the
automation is often developed as standalone scripts used by separate domain teams, with
each team creating and managing automation using its own environment). However, with
the edge computing and 5G SA technologies just around the corner, most of the operators
have already integrated a MANO stack in their OSS, using SOL005 [25]. Apart from the
monetization of Infrastructure as a service (IaaS) services, the MANO stack allows operators
to move carrier-grade functions and services to the cloud, leveraging NFV technology.
This is critical for a cost-efficient delivery of some NSA slicing solutions, like the ones
represented in Figure 10C–E, where there is a need to deploy multiple instances of the
same network functions.
The second stop is the deploy ring of the radar. Coinciding with the early rollout
of 5G SA networks and the commercialization of the first B2C slices, operators need to
integrate slicing logic into their OSS. The short-term focus is on basic slice provisioning. In
this regard, the following solutions are needed.
• NST/NSST. The Network Slice Template (NST) and Network Slice Subnet Template
(NSST) are pre-configured service descriptors that help create a blueprint to ease
replicability (i.e., design once, deploy everywhere) of offered network slices and
slice subnets.
For example, the NSST corresponding to a 5GC slice could include the following
information: (i) the type of services that the 5GC slice supports, (ii) the 5GC slice
topology, and (iii) the 5GC slice placement policy. Based on the fact that a network slice
subnet can be deployed as an ETSI NFV network service (see Figure 1), the information
given in (ii) is a pointer to the corresponding Network Service Descriptor (NSD), while
the information captured in (iii) is the specification of the PoP type where individual
network service components can be deployed, and their affinity/anti-affinity rules.
For the construction of the NST, the approach is similar, but including pointers to
the NSSTs.
The design, development, testing and validation of NSTs/NSSTs/NSDs, and their
subsequent onboarding to the catalogs, are activities that formally belong to the
network slice preparation phase.
• Lite Slice NRM fragment. As seen in Figure 1, the 3GPP information model for
network slicing is complex, with a high number of classes and different containment-
naming relationships across them. Furthermore, this model is in continuous evolution,
as long as the work in 3GPP SA2 and GSMA GST/NEST evolves. For this reason,
it is preferable to have a lite version of the slice NRM fragment in the short term.
This lite version may contain (i) all classes, except the EP_Transport IOC, which is
intended for Rel-16; (ii) simple relationships across them, leveraging as much as
possible on 1:1 mappings; and (iii) a limited number of attributes in the ServiceProfile
and SliceProfile constructions. In these constructions, only the functionality and
performance related attributes that are needed to provision 5GC type A2 slices (B2C
market) will be implemented.
In case of selecting different vendors for the NSMF (in charge of interpreting Service-
Profile attributes) and NSSMF (in charge of interpreting SliceProfile attributes), the
operator must ensure the compatibility of the lite slice NRM fragment with these
NSMF and NSSMF solutions.
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 41 of 52

• Baseline Decision Engine. The Decision Engine is the OSS component in charge of
performing the feasibility check procedure (see Figure 2). In network slicing, this
procedure makes use of three input data: (i) the service requirements that the slice
must support, captured in the ServiceProfile; (ii) the NST, stored in the catalog; and (iii)
the resource and network status, stored in the inventories. As detailed in Section 2.4,
the feasibility check is a two-step operation. If the outcome of this operation is
‘feasible’, the decision engine uses internal policies and optimization algorithms to
decide on the placement and resource allocation of the requested slice, and send out
the decision to the NSMF, which enforces it. The format of this decision is as follows:
instantiate a new slice, configuring the NG-RAN slice with the radio resource allocation
solution “X”, and deploying the 5GC slice in this PoP “Y”. For the instantiation of the 5GC
slice, use the deployment flavor “Z” from the NSD referred in the NSST.
In the short term, it is recommendable to use a baseline Decision Engine. This solution,
captured in the deploy ring of the radar, assumes that the logic of the Decision engine
is rather simple, built upon simple static rules or simply betting on trial-and-error
approaches. The reason is that the variety of 5GC slice types is expected to be rather
low, and all targeted for B2C market; therefore, there are no really a higher number of
deployment options to choose from.
In the medium term, the upgrade to Rel-16 will allow operators to start commercial-
izing network slicing for the B2B customers, with the 5GC slice types B1, B2 and B3. The
shift from B2C to B2B market requires a much more rich-featured OSS than before, with
better capabilities in terms of provisioning and scalability, and with the integration of first
assurance mechanisms. On the one side, the enhancement in provisioning and scalability
is due to the higher variety of slices, with tens of instances running in parallel. On the
other side, the introduction of assurance features will allow operators to guarantee the QoS
and contracted SLAs of each network slice, much more business-critical than those for B2C
slices. The test ring of the radar captures the solutions that are needed to cope with the
new OSS needs. These include:
• Complete Slice NRM fragment. The new wave of slice offerings will be made avail-
able in the operator’s service portfolio, with the publication of different NESTs. The
wide variety of NEST parameters that can be configured by the customer prior to issu-
ing service order, makes it necessary to evolve Slice NRM fragment. The main focus
will be on the ServiceProfile and SliceProfile constructions, which need to extend their
attributes to make them mappable to NEST parameters. Other minor enhancements
are also expected, for example the addition of EP_Transport IOC and more flexible
class relationships, as depicted in Figure 1.
• Advanced Decision Engine. This solution is based on evolving the logic of the
Decision Engine, with the integration of multi-objective policies and optimization
algorithms. With many more slices running in parallel, each with completely different
requirements, the operator’s system becomes much more dynamic. If changes are too
quick, the stability of the operator’s network could be compromised. To avoid this, it
is critical that the decision on slice placement and resource allocation (i) minimizes the
probability of modifying the slice at operation time, and (ii) optimizes resource usage.
• Baseline slice assurance. The assurance represents the ability of the operator to
retrieve management data from individual slices, using them as input for SLA veri-
fication. Examples of these data includes S-NSSAI level information on slice status
(e.g., activated, de-activated), performance measurements and KPIs (e.g., UL/DL
throughput, latency and packet loss rate) [104,105], notifications on fault events and
alarms (e.g., threshold crossing) [106] and trace data.
The operator may start with S-NSSAI level management data based on the aggrega-
tion of metrics collected from the 5GC (via NWDAF) and NFV MANO (via SOL005).
These data will then be aggregated to check the health of the slice, verifying whether
it meets the SLA requirements. In case of SLA violation, the operator will trigger
corrective/remediation actions (e.g., capacity increase, re-configuration) on the cor-
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 42 of 52

responding slice. The number of actions available by then is expected to be limited,

according to the experience the operators are getting from the trials.
In this baseline assurance solution, it is assumed that the assurance group in the OSS
(see Figure 2) will include the ‘data aggregation’ and ‘Service Quality Management’
modules, but not the ‘AI models and training’ module.
Finally, in the longer run (explore ring in the radar), the operator focus will be on
having an advanced slice assurance toolkit available in their OSS stack. To that end,
operators are scouting solutions in two main directions. On the one hand, the incorporation
of the RIC and the SDTN controller as new data sources, building on the two already in
place (NWDAF and NFV MANO). To transform these quite different types of data into
useful information for the Service Quality Management activities, the data aggregation
framework may leverage on the Management Data Analytics Service (MDAS) functionality,
reported by 3GPP in [107,108]. On the other hand, the full automation of the assurance
pipeline (data collection and aggregation → insights → corrective/remediation actions),
using zero-touch mechanisms such as those outlined in [109]. For the insights step, the ‘AI
models and training’ module is to be used.
Once all the solutions in the radar have been discussed, one can wonder how the
operators can assess the level of maturity of their OSS throughout this journey. This
can be done using different OAM related KPIs, including scalability related KPIs (e.g.,
number of slice types, number of instances running in paralell), commissioning related
KPIs (e.g., network slice instantiation time) and operation related KPIs (e.g., network
scaling re-configuration time and scaling in/out time), among others.

8.2. Capability Exposure

Capability exposure represents the ability of a network slice provider to securely ex-
pose capabilities from its managed functions and services towards one or more authorized
customers. These capabilities are made available for consumption through easy-to-use
service APIs. When addressing customers with limited to no telco experience, it is impor-
tant that the offered service APIs focus on the customer industry segment and hide the
complexity of the underlying network. This requires the provider to abstract and combine
low-level network APIs (e.g., 3GPP, ETSI and IETF stage 3 solutions) into customer-facing
and intent-based APIs.
The importance of capability exposure in slicing environments has been already
highlighted in [110,111]. When becoming a network slice provider, the operator can
leverage this feature to offer NSaaS in multiple forms, from provider-managed slices (i.e.,
the provider is in charge of the slice operation, while the customer can merely use the
network resources of the provider slice, without any further capability of managing or
controlling it) to tenant-managed slices (i.e., the customer takes full control of the slice, and
the provider just segregates the infrastructure as required for that purpose) [112], with
some variants in between. By regulating the exposure, the operator can define the visibility
and the degree of control the customer can take over the slice. Figure 18 shows the logic
behind the capability exposure concept.
In the following, we present the service APIs we foresee the operator may offer
for capability exposure. For the sake of simplicity, these APIs have been clustered into
API families.
Today’s situation is as follows: only some operators have NSA slices, based on any
of the technology solutions captured in Figure 10. These slices are rather static, with
everything configured beforehand; this means that no further customization is allowed
from the customer side. In this context, the only actions that the customer can take are
(i) to access the operator’s portfolio, browse the service offering, select the NSA slices and
issue a service order; (ii) to get high-level data on NSA slice status, for the purpose of SLA
assurance; and (iii) to get information about the usage of the NSA slice and components
that can be charged for. All these capabilities are provided with service APIs belonging
to the Accounting, Charging and Billing API family. As seen, the possibilities with this
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 43 of 52

as-is solution is quite limited, as it only permits provider-managed slices. However, this
situation may radically change with the shift towards SA networks.

PROVIDER CUSTOMER
Tenant-
managed
slices Customer A
Customer B

Regulate @capability
exposure

Customer N
Customer M

Provider- Customer X
managed
slices Customer Y

Virtualized
Infrastructure

N*50G/100G N*200G/400G
Orchestration Mgmt & Control Use

Internet
Physical N*25G

Infrastructure
Cell site Access PoP Regional PoP Central PoP
(>1000) (<100) (<10)

Figure 18. Capability exposure in network slicing environments.

In the short term (deploy ring in the radar), the focus will be on premium B2C users,
as noted in Figure 11. For the provision of Type A2 slices, the operator will bet on internal
NESTs. With the presence of NEF in the Rel-15 5GC solution suite, and the integration of
the first Rel-15 features in their OSS systems, the operators are starting to launch a new
API family: Device Info. It provides the customer with the ability to receive information
related to one or more devices. This includes information on device subscription (e.g.,
subscribed NSSAI), device location tracking (UE location and cell site), device mobility
(handovers), device status (e.g., serving S-NSSAI, loss of connection, etc.) or CN type
change (5GC to EPC coverage, and vice versa). This API family might offer the customer
the possibility to explicitly query for this information (request-response mode) or be
reported with notifications on subscribed events (subscribe-notify mode).
In the medium term (the test ring in the radar), the operators will publish the NESTs
into their service portfolio, once 5GC capabilities necessary for building up B2B category
slices are available. The use of NESTs provides an easy solution for the customer to request
the allocation of a slice. Based on the service requirements captured in the NEST, the
operator can then decide which B2B category slice is most appropriate, and provision
it. In this time frame, it is also expected that customers gain experience with slicing
technology, and hence want to retain more control of their slice. This requires the operators
to increasingly expose further capabilities, with the definition of new API families. Below,
there is a list of API families that some tier-1 operators have started to test and validate
with some industry verticals and hyperscalers.
• Edge computing: these service APIs are available for those customers that want to
extend their allocated slices with third party applications, with these applications
hosted by the telco edge cloud. In a nutshell, this API family provides three main
capabilities: (i) edge node discovery capability, which allows the customer to discover
the set of edge nodes available in a certain region; (ii) edge node profile capability,
whereby the customer can get information on capabilities and supported features of a
given edge node, so as to check whether this node is valid for hosting the application;
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 44 of 52

(iii) application resource allocation capability, that allows the customer to request the
operator to deploy the application on a given edge node.
• Device configuration: provides the customer with the ability to register a device into
the network slice, and to update device subscription. Based on the subscription infor-
mation received by the customer, the operator updates the Unified Data Management
(UDM) accordingly. This API family is quite useful for (industrial) IoT scenarios,
where B2B customers want to retain control of the configuration of their devices. For
further information on UDM functionality, see Figure 4 and [10].
• Network slice management data: with this API family, the customers can subscribe
to receive management data related to their allocated slices, at per S-NSSAI level.
The individual customers might also choose how they want to consume these data,
according to their preferences. For example, regarding performance management
data, a customer could specify the KPIs to be informed, the batch format and the
reporting period.
• QoS control: provides the customer with the ability to set and modify quality for a
slice (e.g., maximum latency, guaranteed throughput, maximum admissible packet
rate), on demand. The operator captures the customer-triggered request and routes
it through the NEF down to the PCF, which will ultimately set/modify the 5QI
associated with the in-slice PDU session(s).
• Traffic influence: provides the customer with the ability to modify the connection
policies of UEs attached to the slice, in terms of how the traffic flows. For example, if
the customer has deployed a 3rd party application in a specific edge node, with this
API family the customer can then request the re-routing of the in-slice packet flows to
this edge node.
Finally, in the longer run, the integration of Rel-17+ features into the network and OSS
layers will allow operators to unleash the full potential of NSaaS. Examples of API families
that operators foresee to make available in five-to-seven years time are captured below.
• Slice day-2 configuration: allows the customer to retain full control of slice day-to-
day operation, which is the ultimate realization of tenant-managed slices. With this
API family, the customer could request topology changes and resizing (e.g., scaling
in/out) on the slice, based on the processing of alarms and KPIs received.
• Customer-defined slice composition: allows the customer to request a slice à la carte.
To enable this feature, the operator shall define a marketplace with different functions
and applications. The customer should be able to browse this marketplace, design an
E2E slice by connecting selected functions/applications (following a ‘plug-and-play’
approach), and order its provisioning. This is a giant step forward, and requires
thinking of novel ways of designing slices and capturing their service requirements,
beyond today’s NEST approach.

9. Conclusions
As 5G standards get completed and commercial products mature, operators shall
demonstrate their ability to efficiently combine available technology solutions to deliver
network slices for different customers, with a number of these slices being short-lived
and provisioned on demand. Network slicing may allow network operators not only to
achieve relevant CAPEX and OPEX reductions in their managed network infrastructure,
but also to significantly enrich their portfolio with innovative service offerings, which is a
key differentiator in the highly competitive environment the provision of network services
has become today.
Network slicing is an E2E solution that has an impact on all subsystems, including the
different technology domains (including RAN, CN and TN) and the operational systems
(the OSS). The main problem is that the degree of maturity of slicing support is quite
different in these subsystems. Indeed, while the CN is the technology domain that currently
supports the most advanced slicing capabilities, the TN is still in and early phase, with
RAN domain sitting in between. In the case of the OSS, in charge of the management of
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 45 of 52

these three technology domains and of the orchestration activities across them, we can find
different paces of technology evolution.
According to the above rationale, it is clear that it may take several years for operators
to prepare their systems to fully harness the power of network slicing, and become able to
support NSaaS. Awaiting this moment to start commercializing and monetizing network
slicing is not an option, either for operators (who cannot offset the costs associated with
the introduction of slicing capabilities into their assets) or for customers (which may not
need the full set of capabilities for their use cases from the very beginning). In this context,
what the industry demands is a phased-based rollout of slicing, starting with early-stage
solutions and outlining a vision of what is desired in the longer run to guide progress
and focus.
In this article, we have presented a radar with the mission to help industry in defining
this rollout. This radar captures a complete landscape of network slicing solutions, linking
these solutions to different timelines based on their technical viability and market demands.
In addition to this timing, the radar has also outlined the dimensions that have an impact
on the usability (how and where) of these solutions, across all operator managed domains.
In the RAN domain, network slicing solutions have been discussed based on functional
aspects (e.g., disaggregation and O-RAN integration), radio resource allocation and pene-
tration in the operator’s cell footprint. In the CN domain, discussions have been around
the fulfilment of isolation and customer requirements of network slice customers, resulting
in the use and combination of different 5GC functions, with different profiles. In the TN
domain, solutions have been articulated around the technology capabilities available in
the underlay WAN, complemented with the automation and programmability capabilities
brought by SDN technology. Finally, in the OSS domain, aspects related to network slice
OAM and capability exposure have been addressed, with a focus on provisioning and
assurance activities.
The network slicing solutions captured in the radar have been analyzed based on their
timeline, together with the above dimensions in Sections 4–8. In order to provide the reader
with a common reference system to interpret the content of this radar, we started this work
by providing the technical background of network slicing (Section 2) and its impact on
individual technology domains (Section 3).
We are confident that the radar presented and discussed in this article will be a
valuable reference for operators to outline their network slicing rollout plan within their
service footprint. In fact, each operator can go through the radar and decide which specific
solutions they want to activate in the different domains (CN, RAN, TN and OSS) and how
to combine them, so that the resulting E2E capabilities can meet the service requirements of
the targeted customers. This work has not entered into these decisions, which are entirely
up to each operator, and subjected to certain market and business driven factors. In other
words, this article provides the input material that an operator needs for the definition of
a network slicing rollout plan (e.g., description, analysis and profiling of network slicing
solutions, in terms of timing and features), but with no details on how to execute this plan.
Getting to these details would require going through two activities that are out of the scope
of this article, and therefore not addressed in the discussion of this work:
• First, the definition of a well-defined methodology for the design of a robust rollout
plan. The radar captures all available solutions and categorizes them into different
dimensions and timelines; however, it does not provide clues on how an operator
shall combine them in production networks. Examples of reference methodologies to
this end can be found in [4–6]. These technology analyst reports provide high level
recommendations and good practices for operators to design their individual rollout
plans for network slicing.
• Secondly, the assessment of proposed network slicing solutions, so that their main
advantages and disadvantages can be outlined in advance. This needs to be done
individually (i.e., per domain-specific solution) and E2E (i.e., based on selecting
combinations of RAN+TN+CN solutions). One of the aspects we consider for future
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 46 of 52

work is the evaluation of these solutions, using either simulation work or PoCs,
depending on the maturity of each solution.
Besides operators, the outcomes of this work may be of relevance for other audience,
including vendors, verticals and researchers. On the one hand, the solutions captured
in this radar can help the vendors to consolidate the feature roadmap in their products.
On the other hand, the verticals can use this radar to understand what slicing capabilities
may be available for consumption, and by when. This knowledge should be important
for them, especially to manage expectations in terms of implementable use cases. Finally,
this work provides a reference for researchers to keep working on the validation of E2E
slicing solutions, using experimental setups that mimic the limitations and conditions of
real-world carrier networks.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.O.-L., P.A.; Investigation, J.O.-L., L.M.C.; Methodology:

J.O.-L., P.A.; Writing—original draft, J.O.-L., P.A., L.M.C., J.F., D.R.L.; Supervision, P.A., J.F., D.R.L.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is partially supported by the H2020 European Projects 5G-VINNI (grant agree-
ment No. 815279) and 5G-CLARITY (grant agreement No. 871428). It is also supported by the
Spanish national project TRUE-5G (PID2019-108713RB-C53). This research reflects the consortia
views, but neither the consortia nor the European Commission are liable for any use that may be
done of the information contained therein.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The views and opinions expressed
in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of
the companies and institutions they represent.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

5G Fifth Generation
5GC 5G Core
5QI 5G Quality Indicator
AI Artificial Intelligence
AMBR Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate
AMF Access and Mobility management Function
API Application Programming Interface
ASIC Application Specific Integrated Circuit
B2B Business-to-Business
B2C Business-to-Customer
BSS Business Support System
CN Core Network
CSMF Communication Service Management Function
CU Centralized Unit
DN Data Network
DRB Dedicated Radio Bearer
DSCP DiffServ Code Point
DU Distributed Unit
DWDM Dense WDM
E2E end-to-end
eCPRI Enhanced Common Public Radio Interface
EPC Evolved Packet Core
Flex-E Flexible Ethernet
Flex-O Flexible Optical Transport Network
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 47 of 52

FPGA Field Programmable Gate Array

GBR Guaranteed Bit Rate
GSMA GSM Alliance
GST Generic network Slice Template
IaaS Infrastructure as a Service
IOC Information Object Class
L4S Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput
LSP Label Switched Path
MANO Management and Orchestration
MBR Maximum Bit Rate
MDAS Management Data Analytics Service
MPLS Multiple Protocol Label Switching
MW Microwave
near-RT RIC near-Real Time RIC
NEF Network Exposure Function
NEST Network Slice Type
NFV Network Functions Virtualization
NFVO NFV Orchestrator
NG-RAN Next Generation RAN
non-RT RIC Non-Real Time RIC
NPN Non-Public Network
NR New Radio
NRM Network Resource Model
NSA Non Standalone
NSaaS Network Slice as a Service
NSCAF Network Slice Access Control Function
NSD Network Service Descriptor
NSI Network Slice Instance
NSMF Network Slice Management Function
NSSAI Network Slice Selection Assistance Information
NSSI Network Slice Subnet Instance
NSSMF Network Slice Subnet Management Function
NSST Network Slice Subnet Template
NST Network Slice Template
NWDAF Network Data Analytics Function
OAM Operation, Administration and Maintenance
OS Operation System
OSS Operations Support System
PCE Path Computation Element
PCF Policy Control Function
PDU Packet Data Unit
PLMN Public Land Mobile Network
PNI-NPN Public Network Integrated NPN
PoC Proof of Concept
PoP Point of Presence
PRB Physical Radio Block
RAN Radio Access Network
RIC RAN Intelligent Controller
ROADM Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop Multiplexer
RRM Radio Resource Management
RU Radio Unit
S-NSSAI Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information
SA Standalone
SBA Service Based Architecture
SBMA Service Based Management Architecture
SD Slice Differentiation
SD-WAN Software Defined WAN
SDN Software Defined Networking
SDO Standards Development Organization
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 48 of 52

SDTN controller Software Defined Transport Network Controller

SLA Service Level Agreement
SMF Session Management Function
SNPN Standalone NPN
SR Segment Routing
SST Slice/Service Type
T-NSC Transport Network Slice Controller
TAC Tracking Area Code
TAI Tracking Area Identifier
TE Traffic Engineering
TN Transport Network
TSN Time Sensitive Network
UE User Equipment
UPF User Plane Function
URSP UE Resource Selection Policy
VLL Virtual Leased Line
VNF Virtualized Network Function
VPLS Virtual Private LAN Service
VPN Virtual Private Network
VPRN Virtual Private Routed Network
WAN Wide Area Network
WDM Wavelength Division Multiplexing
XR Immersive Reality
YANG Yet Another Next Generation

References
1. GSMA. The 5G Guide: A Reference for Operators. White Paper 2019. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/wp-content/
uploads/2019/04/The-5G-Guide_GSMA_2019_04_29_compressed.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
2. Ordonez-Lucena, J.; Ameigeiras, P.; Lopez, D.; Ramos-Munoz, J.J.; Lorca, J.; Folgueira, J. Network slicing for 5G with SDN/NFV:
Concepts, architectures, and challenges. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 80–87. [CrossRef]
3. GSMA. Network Slicing-Use Case Requirements. White Paper 2018. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/
wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Network-Slicing-Use-Case-Requirements-fixed.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
4. De Gimarlo, S.W. Create Value and Drive Revenue with 5G Network Slicing Phased Approach. Gart. Res. 2021. Available online:
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/4000232/create-value-and-drive-revenue-with-5g-network-slicing-p (accessed on
24 October 2021).
5. Crawshaw, J. Network Slicing Management: A Key Use Case for Service Orchestration. Omdia 2021. Available online: https:
//omdia.tech.informa.com/OM016836/Network-Slicing-Management-A-Key-Use-Case-for-Service-Orchestration (accessed on
24 October 2021).
6. Ericsson, D.; Little, A. Network Slicing: A go-to-market guide to capture high revenue potential. Ind. Rep. 2021. Available
online: https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/digital-services/network-slicing/network-slicing-value-potential.pdf?_ga=2.
138537011.1263526122.1635069819-399301922.1635069819 (accessed on 24 October 2021).
7. 3GPP TS 38.401. NG-RAN; Architecture Description (3GPP TS 38.401 Version 16.7.0 Release 16). October 2021. Available online:
https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/38_series/38.401/38401-g70.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
8. Launay, F. NG-RAN Network—Functional Architecture. In NG-RAN and 5G-NR: 5G Radio Access Network and Radio Interface;
Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 1–29. [CrossRef]
9. O-RAN Alliance. O-RAN Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios: Towards Open and Smart RAN. White Paper 2020. Available
online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ad774cce74940d7115044b0/t/5e95a0a306c6ab2d1cbca4d3/1586864301196/O-
RAN+Use+Cases+and+Deployment+Scenarios+Whitepaper+February+2020.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
10. 3GPP TS 23.501. 5G; System Architecture for the 5G System (3GPP TS 23.501 Version 17.2.0 Release 17). September 2021. Available
online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.501/23501-h20.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
11. O-RAN Alliance. Control, User and Synchronization Plane Specification (O-RAN.WG4.CUS.0-v06); O-RAN Alliance: Alfter, Germany,
2021.
12. O-RAN Alliance. Management Plane Specification Specification (O-RAN.WG4.MP.0-v06); O-RAN Alliance: Alfter, Germany, 2021.
13. 3GPP TS 38.470. NG-RAN; F1 General Aspects and Principles (3GPP TS 38.470 Version 15.6.0 Release 16). Available online:
https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/38_series/38.470/38470-g50.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
14. 3GPP TS 29.561. 5G System; Interworking between 5G Network and External Data Networks (3GPP TS 29.561 Version 17.3.1
Release 17). September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/29_series/29.561/29561-h31.zip,
(accessed on 24 October 2021).
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 49 of 52

15. 3GPP TS 28.541. Management and Orchestration; 5G Network Resource Model (NRM); Stage 2 and 3 (3GPP TS 28.541 Version
17.4.0 Release 17). September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.541/28541-h40.zip
(accessed on 24 October 2021).
16. ETSI GR NFV 003. Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV); Terminology for Main Concepts in NFV (ETSI GR NFV 003 Version
1.6.1). March 2021. Available online: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gr/NFV/001_099/003/01.06.01_60/gr_nfv003v010601p.
pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
17. 3GPP TS 28.530. Management and Orchestration; Use Cases and Requirements (3GPP TS 28.530 Version 17.1.0 Release
17). April 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.530/28530-h10.zip (accessed on
24 October 2021).
18. 3GPP TS 28.533. 5G; Management and Orchestration; Architecture Framework (3GPP TS 28.533 Version 17.0.0 Release 17).
September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.533/28533-h00.zip (accessed on
24 October 2021).
19. ETSI GS ZSM 002. Zero-Touch Network and Service Management (ZSM); Reference Architecture (ETSI GS ZSM 002 Version 1.1.1).
August 2019. Available online: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/ZSM/001_099/002/01.01.01_60/gs_ZSM002v010101p.pdf
(accessed on 24 October 2021).
20. ETSI ISG NFV. NFV Release 4 Definition (Release Documentation v0.3.0). April 2021. Available online: https://docbox.etsi.
org/ISG/NFV/Open/Other/ReleaseDocumentation/NFV(21)000025_NFV_Release_4_Definition_v0_3_0.pdf (accessed on 24
October 2021).
21. GSMA PRD NG.116. Generic Network Slice Template (NG.116 Version 5.0). June 2021. Available online: https://www.gsma.
com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads//NG.116-v5.0-7.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
22. GSMA. From Vertical Industry Requirements to Network Slice Characteristics. White Paper 2018. Available on-
line: https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/5G-Network-Slicing-Report-From-Vertical-
Industry-Requirements-to-Network-Slice-Characteristics.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
23. TM Forum. TMF641 Service Ordering API User Guide; v4.1.0; TM Forum: Parsippany, NJ, USA, 2021.
24. 3GPP TS 28.531. 5G; Management and Orchestration; Provisioning (3GPP TS 28.531 Version 17.1.0 Release 17). September 2021.
Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.531/28531-h10.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
25. ETSI GS NFV SOL 005. Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV) Release 3; Protocols and Data Models; RESTful Protocols
Specification for the Os-Ma-Nfvo Reference Point (ETSI GS NFV SOL 005 Version 3.5.1). October 2021. Available online: https://
www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-SOL/001_099/005/03.05.01_60/gs_nfv-sol005v030501p.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
26. GSMA. Operator Platform Telco Edge Proposal Version 1.0. White Paper 2020. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/
futurenetworks/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/GSMA-Operator-Platform-Proposal-Oct-2020.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
27. Lorca, F.J.; Serna, E.; Aparacio, M.; Chaissagne, A.; Esplá, J.L. Telefonica Views on the Design, Architecture and Technology of
4G/5G Open RAN Networks. White Paper 2021. Available online: https://www.telefonica.com/documents/737979/145981257
/Whitepaper-OpenRAN-Telefonica.pdf/3a160ca9-c325-a3d6-a6da-f9453616144d (accessed on 24 October 2021).
28. 3GPP TS 23.503. 5G; Policy and Charging Control Framework for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (3GPP TS 23.503 Version 17.2.0
Release 17). September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.503/23503-h20.zip
(accessed on 24 October 2021).
29. NGMN Alliance. 5G Smart Devices Supporting Network Slicing Version 1.1. White Paper 2020. Available online: https://ngmn.
org/wp-content/uploads/201214_NGMN_5G_SmartDevicesSupportingNetworkSlicing.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
30. 3GPP TS 23.502. 5G; Procedures for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (3GPP TS 23.502 Version 17.2.0 Release 17). September 2021.
Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.502/23502-h20.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
31. Wen, G.; Feng, G.; Zhou, J.; Quin, S. Mobility Management for Network Slicing Based 5G Networks. In Proceedings of the 2018
IEEE 18th International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT), Chongqing, China, 8–11 October 2018; Volume 55,
pp. 291–296. [CrossRef]
32. 3GPP TS 28.622. Telecommunication Management; Generic Network Resource Model (NRM) Integration Reference Point (IRP);
Information Service (IS) (3GPP TS 28.622 Version 16.9.0 Release 19). Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
archive/28_series/28.622/28622-g90.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
33. Nichols, K.; Blake, S.; Baker, F.; Black, D. Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers.
RFC 2474. Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474 (accessed on 24 October 2021). [CrossRef]
34. Coriant. The Role of OTN Switching in 100G and Beyond Transport Networks. White Paper 2015. Available online:
https://www.ofcconference.org/getattachment/90c0e6a4-08c1-45fb-a7f2-2957d444dc7d/The-Role-of-OTN-Switching-in-10
0G-Beyond-Transpo.aspx (accessed on 24 October 2021).
35. IA #OIF FLEXE-02.1. IA Flex Ethernet 2.1-Implementation Agreement. 2019. Available online: https://www.oiforum.com/wp-
content/uploads/OIF-FLEXE02.1.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
36. Viavi Solutions. OIF Flex-E 2.1-Flexible Use of Etherne. 2020. Available online: https://www.viavisolutions.com/de-de/
literature/oif-flexe-20-flexible-use-ethernet-posters-en.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
37. GSMA. 5G Implementation Guidelines. White Paper 2019. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/5G-Implementation-Guideline-v2.0-July-2019.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021)
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 50 of 52

38. H2020 5G-VINNI Project: “5G Verticals Innovation Infrastructure”. Available online: https://www.5g-vinni.eu (accessed on
24 October 2021).
39. H2020 5GROWTH Project: “5G-Enabled Growth in Vertical Industries”. Available online: https://5growth.eu (accessed on
24 October 2021).
40. H2020 5G-CLARITY Project: “Beyong 5G Multi-Tenant Private Networks Integrating Cellular, Wi-Fi and LiFi, Powered by
Artificial Intelligence and Intent Based Policy”. Available online: https://www.5gclarity.com (accessed on 24 October 2021).
41. 3GPP TS 23.707. Architecture Enhancements for Dedicated Core Networks; Stage 2 (3GPP TS 23.707 Version 13.0.0). De-
cember 2014. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.707/23707-d00.zip (accessed on
24 October 2021).
42. Liu, G.; Huang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Liu, Q.; Wang, Q.; Li, N. 5G Deployment: Standalone vs. Non-Standalone from the Operator
Perspective. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2020, 58, 83–89.[CrossRef]
43. Spirent. Building the New Telecom Innovation Pipeline; Spirent Ebook Series; Spirent: Crawley, UK, 2021. Available online:
https://assets.ctfassets.net/wcxs9ap8i19s/4bQsMvPuNvbEorkXMx8a7R/ee4b0e31bd5b06c0ba73d39f93821d67/EB-Building-
the-New-Telecom-Innovation-Pipeline.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
44. Ordonez-Lucena, J.; Chavarria, J.F.; Contreras, L.M.; Pastor, A. The use of 5G Non-Public Networks to support Industry 4.0
scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN), Granada,
Spain, 28–30 October 2019; pp. 1–7.
45. Poe, W.Y.; Ordonez-Lucena, J.; Mahmood, K. Provisioning Private 5G Networks by Means of Network Slicing: Architectures and
Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), Dublin,
Ireland, 7–11 June 2020; pp. 1–6.[CrossRef]
46. 3GPP Liaison Statement. LS on UPF Support for Multiple Network Slices (S2-2105240/C4-212560). February 2021. Available
online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_146E_Electronic_2021-08/Docs/S2-2105240.zip (accessed on
24 October 2021).
47. Balasubramanian, S. (Nokia). End-to-End Network Slicing in 5G System: 3GPP Standards Perspective. 2016. Available online:
https://www.5g-ks.org/pdf/Network_Slicing_in_5GS-E2E_View-Nokia.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
48. Chai, Y.-H.; Lin, F.J. Evaluating Dedicated Slices of Different Configurations in 5G Core. J. Comput. Commun. 2021, 7, 83–
89.[CrossRef]
49. ETSI. Harmonizing Standards for Edge Computing—A Synergized Architecture Leveraging ETSI ISG MEC and 3GPP Specifi-
cations. White Paper 2020; Volume 36. Available online: https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/ETSI_wp36_
Harmonizing-standards-for-edge-computing.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
50. 3GPP TS 29.520. 5G; 5G System; Network Data Analytics Services; Stage 3 (3GPP TS 29.520 Version 17.4.0 Release 17).
September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/29_series/29.520/29520-h40.zip (accessed on 24
October 2021).
51. 3GPP TS 23.288. Architecture Enhancements for 5G System (5GS) to Support Network Data Analytics Services (3GPP TS 23.288
Version 17.2.0 Release 17). September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.288/232
88-h20.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
52. 3GPP TS 29.526. 5G; 5G System; Network Slice-Specification Authentication and Authorization (NSSAA) Services; Stage 3 (3GPP
TS 29.526 Version 17.2.0 Release 17). September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/29_series/29
.526/29526-h20.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
53. GSMA PRD NG.113. 5GS Roaming Guidelines (NG.113 Version 4.0). May 2021. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/
newsroom/wp-content/uploads//NG.113-v4.0.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
54. Niknam, S.; Roy, A.; Dhillon, H.S.; Singh, S.; Banerji, R.; Reed, J.H.; Saxena, N.; Yoon, S. Intelligent O-RAN for beyond 5G and 6G
wireless networks. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2005.08374.
55. O-RAN Alliance. O-RAN Architecture Description (O-RAN.WG1.O-v03); O-RAN Alliance: Alfter, Germany, 2020.
56. Sharma, S.K.; Bogale, T.E.; Le, L.B.; Chatzinotas, S.; Wang, X.; Ottersten, B. Dynamic Spectrum Sharing in 5G Wireless Networks
With Full-Duplex Technology: Recent Advances and Research Challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018, 1, 674–707. [CrossRef]
57. Chin-Lin, I.; Kuklinskí, S.; Chen, T. A Perspective of O-RAN Integration with MEC, SON, and Network Slicing in the 5G Era.
IEEE Netw. 2020, 6, 3–4.[CrossRef]
58. O-RAN Alliance. O-RAN Near-Real-Time RAN Intelligent Controller Architecture and General Aspects and Principles (O-
RAN.WG3.E2GAP-v01.01); O-RAN Alliance: Alfter, Germany, 2020.
59. O-RAN Alliance. Slicing Architecture (O-RAN.WG1.Slicing-Architecture-v05); O-RAN Alliance: Alfter, Germany, 2021.
60. O-RAN Alliance. O-RAN O1 Interface Specification for O-DU (O-RAN.WG5.MP.0-v01.00); O-RAN Alliance: Alfter, Germany, 2020.
61. O-RAN Alliance. O-RAN A1 Interface: Type Definitions 2.0 (O-RAN.WG2.A1TD-v02); O-RAN Alliance: Alfter, Germany, 2020.
62. Briscoe, B.; De Schepper, K.; Bagnulo, M.; White, G. Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service
Architecture. Draft-Ietf-Tsvwg-l4s-Arch-10 (Work in Progress). Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
tsvwg-l4s-arch/ (accessed on 24 October 2021).
63. KDDI and Samsung. E2E Network Slicing PoC with RIC Radio Resource Management. O-RAN Alliance Plugfest. Available
online: https://plugfestvirtualshowcase.o-ran.org/dist/images/part2.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 51 of 52

64. CPRI. Common Public Radio Interface: eCPRI Interface Specification V2.0. 2019. Available online: http://www.cpri.info/
downloads/eCPRI_v_2.0_2019_05_10c.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
65. Henry, J.; Sziget, T.; Contreras, L.M. Diffserv to QCI Mapping. Draft-Henry-Tsvwg-Diffserv-to-Qci-04 (Work in Progress).
Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci (accessed on 24 October 2021).
66. Kaippamllimalil, J.; Lee, Y.; Saboorian, T.; Shalash, M.; Kozat, U. Traffic Engineered Transport for 5G Networks. In Proceedings of
the 2019 IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN), Granada, Spain, 28–30 October 2019;
pp. 1–7.[CrossRef]
67. Saad, T.; Beeram, V.; Juniper Networks; Wen, B.; Comcast; Ceccarelli, D.; Halpern, J.; Ericsson; Peng, S.; Chen, R.; et al.
Realizing Network Slices in IP/MPLS Networks. Draft-Bestbar-Teas-Ns-Packet-03 (Work in Progress). Available online:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet (accessed on 24 October 2021).
68. Jaksic, D. Segment Routing in Service Provider networks. In Proceedings of the Cisco Connect Event, Rovinj, Croatia, 19–21 March
2018.
69. Filsfils. Segment Routing Architecture. RFC 8402. Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402 (accessed on
24 October 2021).
70. Borsatti, D.; Davoli, G.; Cerroni, W.; Callegati, F. Service Function Chaining Leveraging Segment Routing for 5G Network Slicing.
In Proceedings of the 2019 15th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), Halifax, NS, Canada,
21–25 October 2019; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
71. Gramaglia, M.; Sciancalepore, V.; Fernandez-Maestro, F.J.; Perez, R.; Serrano, P.; Banchs, A. Experimenting with SRv6: A Tunneling
Protocol supporting Network Slicing in 5G and beyond. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 25th International Workshop on
Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD), Virtual Conference, 14–16 September
2020; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
72. Stateless and Scalable Network Slice Identification for SRv6. Draft-Filsfils-Spring-srv6-Stateless-Slice-id-04 (Work in Progress).
Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id (accessed on 24 October 2021).
73. Katsalis, K.; Gatzikis, L.; Samdanis, K. Towards Slicing for Transport Networks: The Case of Flex-Ethernet in 5G. In Proceedings
of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN), Paris, France, 29–31 October 2019;
pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
74. ITU-T G.709.1/Y.1331.1. Flexible OTN Short-Reach Interfaces. April 2021. Available online: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.
709.1/recommendation.asp?lang=en&parent=T-REC-G.709.1-201806-I (accessed on 24 October 2021).
75. Bhattacharjee, S.; Katsalis, K.; Arouk, O.; Schmidt, R.; Wang, T.; An, X.; Bauschert, T.; Nikaein, N. Network Slicing for TSN-Based
Transport Networks. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 62788–62809. [CrossRef]
76. IETF Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Working Group. Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/detnet/about/
(accessed on 24 October 2021).
77. MEF 70.1 Draft Release 1. SD-WAN Service Attributes and Service Framework 2020. Available online: https://www.mef.net/
wp-content/uploads/2020/08/MEF-70-1-Draft-R1.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
78. MEF 3.0 Proof of Concept (PoC) 133. SD-WAN and 5G with Network Slicing. Available online: https://www.mef.net/poc/sd-
wan-with-5g-network-slicing/ (accessed on 24 October 2021)
79. ONF TR-522. SDN Architecture for Transport Networks 2016. Available online: https://opennetworking.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/10/SDN_Architecture_for_Transport_Networks_TR522.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
80. Ceccarelli, D.; Lee, Y. Framework for Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ATCN). RFC 8453. Available
online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453 (accessed on 24 October 2021). [CrossRef]
81. Mu, Q.; Boucadair, M.; Lopez, D.; Xie, C.; Geng, L. A Framework for Automating Service and Network Management with YANG
RFC 8969. Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8969 (accessed on 24 October 2021). [CrossRef]
82. Contreras, L.M.; Gonzalez, O.; Lopez, V.; Fernández-Palacios, J.P.; Folgueira, J. iFUSION: Standards-based SDN Architecture for
Carrier Transport Network. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking
(CSCN), Granada, Spain, 28–30 October 2019; pp. 1–7. [CrossRef]
83. Telefónica; Vodafone; MTN Group, Orange; Telia Company; Deustche Telekom. Open Transport SDN Architecture Whitepa-
per. Available online: https://cdn.brandfolder.io/D8DI15S7/at/jh6nnbb6bjvn7w7t5jbgm5n/OpenTransportArchitecture-
Whitepaper_TIP_Final.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
84. Enns, R.; Bjorklund, M.; Schoenwaelder, J.; Bierman, A. Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF). RFC 6241. Available
online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241 (accessed on 24 October 2021).
85. Openconfig. Data Models and APIs. Available online: https://www.openconfig.net/projects/models/ (accessed on
24 October 2021).
86. Gredler, H.; Medved, J.; Previdi, S.; Farrel, A.; Ray, S. North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Using
BGP. RFC 7752. Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752 (accessed on 24 October 2021). [CrossRef]
87. Vasseur, J.P.; Le Roux, J.L. Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP). RFC 5440. Available online:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5540 (accessed on 24 October 2021). [CrossRef]
88. gRPC. A High Performance, Open Source Universal Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Framework. Available online: https://grpc.io
(accessed on 24 October 2021).
Sensors 2021, 21, 8094 52 of 52

89. Madapatha, C.; Makki, B.; Fang, C.; Teyeb, O.; Dahlman, E.; Alouini, M.S.; Svensson, T. On Integrated Access and Backhaul Networks:
Current Status and Potentials. IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. 2020, 1, 1374–1389. [CrossRef]
90. Bierman, A.; Bjorjund, M.; Watsen, K. RESTCONF Protocol. RFC 8040. Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040
(accessed on 24 October 2021). [CrossRef]
91. Litkwoski, S.; Tomotaki, L.; Ogaki, K. YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery. RFC 8049. Available online: https:
//www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364 (accessed on 24 October 2021). [CrossRef]
92. Wen, B.; Fioccola, G.; Xie, C.; Jalil, L. A YANG Data Model for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Service Delivery. RFC
8466. Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8466 (accessed on 24 October 2021).
93. Barguil, S.; de Dios, O.G.; Boucadair, M.; Munoz, L.; Aguado, A. A Layer 3 VPN Network YANG Model. Draft-Ietf-Opsawg-l3sm-
l3nm-05 (Work in Progress). Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm (accessed on
24 October 2021).
94. Barguil, S.; De Dios, O.G.; Boucadair, M.; Munoz, L.; Jalil, L.; Ma, J. A Layer 2 VPN Network Yang Model. Draft-Ietf-Opsawg-
l2nm-02 (Work in Progress). Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm (accessed on
24 October 2021).
95. Saad, T.; Gandhi, R.; Liu, X.; Beeram, V.; Bryskin, I. A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels, Label Switched Paths
and Interfaces. Draft-Ietf-Teas-Yang-te-25 (Work in Progress). Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-
yang-te/ (accessed on 24 October 2021).
96. Liu, X.; Bryskin, I.; Beeram, V.; Saad, T.; Shah, H.; de Dios, O.G. YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies. RFC
8795. Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8795 (accessed on 24 October 2021).
97. ONF Transport API (T-API) Project. Available online: https://github.com/OpenNetworkingFoundation/TAPI (accessed on
15 October 2021).
98. Openbackhaul Project. Available online: https://github.com/openBackhaul/overview (accessed on 15 October 2021).
99. ONF TR-512v1.4. Core Information Model (CoreModel). v1.4.1. 2018. Available online: https://opennetworking.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/12/TR-512_v1.4_OnfCoreIm-info.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
100. IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signalling (TEAS) Working Group. Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
teas/about/ (accessed on 24 October 2021).
101. Farrel, A. Framework for IETF Network Slices. Draft-Ietf-Teas-Ietf-Network-Slices-04 (Work in Progress). Available online:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices (accessed on 24 October 2021).
102. Contreras, L.M. IETF Network Slice Use Cases and Attributes for Northbound Inteface of IETF Network Slice Controllers.
Draft-Contreras-Teas-Slice-Nbi-05 (Work in Progress). Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-contreras-
teas-slice-nbi(accessed on 24 October 2021).
103. Liu, X. IETF Network Slice Service YANG Data Model. Draft-Liu-Teas-Transport-Network-Slice-Nbi-Yang-05 (Work in
Progress). Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-nbi-yang(accessed on
24 October 2021).
104. 3GPP TS 28.552. 5G; Management and Orchestration; 5G Performance Measurements (3GPP TS 28.552 Version 17.4.0 Release 17).
September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.552/28552-h40.zip (accessed on
24 October 2021).
105. 3GPP TS 28.554. 5G; Management and Orchestration; 5G end to end Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (3GPP TS 28.554 Version
17.4.y Release 17). September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.554/28554-h40.zip
(accessed on 24 October 2021).
106. 3GPP TS 28.545. 5G; Management and Orchestration; Fault Supervision (FS) (3GPP TS 28.552 Version 17.0.0 Release 17).
September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.545/28545-h00.zip (accessed on
24 October 2021).
107. 3GPP TR 28.809. 5G; Management and Orchestration; Study on Enhancement of Management Data Analytics (MDA) (3GPP TR
28.809 Version 17.0.0 Release 17). September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.8
09/28809-h00.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
108. 3GPP TS 28.104. 5G; Management and Orchestration; Management Data Analytics (MDA) (3GPP TR 28.104 Version 0.2.0).
September 2021. Available online: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.104/28104-020.zip (accessed on
24 October 2021).
109. ETSI GS ZSM 009–2. Zero-Touch Network and Service Management (ZSM); Closed-Loop Automation; Part 2: Solutions (ETSI GS
ZSM 009–2 Version 0.7.0 Draft). October 2021. Available online: https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/ZSM/Open/Drafts/009-2ed111
_Cla_sol/ZSM-009-2_Cla_solv070.zip (accessed on 24 October 2021).
110. GSMA. An Introduction to Network Slicing. White Paper 2017. Available online: https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/GSMA-An-Introduction-to-Network-Slicing.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
111. NGMN Alliance. Security Aspects of Network Capabilities Exposure in 5G v1.0. White Paper 2018. Available online:
https://ngmn.org/wp-content/uploads/Publications/2018/180921_NGMN-NCEsec_white_paper_v1.0.pdf (accessed on 24 Oc-
tober 2021).
112. Contreras, L.M.; López, D.R. A Network Service Provider Perspective on Network Slicing. Available online: https://sdn.ieee.
org/newsletter/january-2018/a-network-service-provider-perspective-on-network-slicing (accessed on 24 October 2021).