# On the Rollout of Network Slicing in Carrier Networks: A Technology Radar
## 9 Conclusions
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; 5; 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 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. 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. This work is partially supported by the H2020 European Projects 5G-VINNI (grant agreement No. 815279) and 5G-CLARITY (grant agreement No. 871428). It is also supported by the Spanish national project TRUE-5G (PID2019-108713 RB-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. Not applicable. 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. The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: