[Actn] 答复: ACTN progress

[Zhenghaomian <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Young and Igor,

Thanks for the sharing, great to see a more converged architecture. From my perspective, the model work mentioned are all necessary, but it seems such model should be dependent on protocol works, i.e., we need to complete protocol first and then modeling. Parallel style is also good for protocol and model, but I prefer we turn to protocol if they have some inconsistency between protocol and model. Besides I still have some questions:

In the previous mail, I am a little bit confused with the limitation on MDSC connection. It seems MDSC is not clear with who it is connecting by mentioning “MDSC should not be able to distinguish if it interfaces MDSC or PNCs (i.e., the same interface)”. My opinion is it is not necessary to limit the knowledge of MDSC, i.e., it is fine if a MDSC has the ability to detect whether it is connecting with a PNC or another MDSC. At least, a MDSC MUST have the ability to identify CNC from MDSC/PNCs.  Or maybe you are saying “A PNC can become MDSC if there is recursive hierarchy? ”. I like this due to the dynamic topology growing in the network.

By reading “CNC interfacing MDSC should be essentially the same interface as MDSC interfacing another MDSC or PNCs”, I feel that the functionalities on interface B and C (defined in fwk draft) are becoming similar, which quite confuse me as well. I agree that these interfaces may have similar message flow during service request, provisioning and so on, but they are quite different during OAM, recovery and resource mgmt. I don’t think it is a good idea to consider these two interface “the same as each other”.

Would you please help explain the issue above? Thanks a lot.

Best wishes,
Haomian

发件人: Leeyoung [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2015年1月15日 3:12
收件人: [e-mail]
主题: [Actn] ACTN progress

Hi All,

Just wanted to share some private emails exchanged among a limited interested parties in the past week with a permission with Igor.

In a nutshell, I think we are converging with a common view on ACTN interfaces and architecture. Please check the following email thread. Please comment if you have any question.

Thanks,
Young

From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:13 PM
To: Leeyoung; Daniele Ceccarelli
Cc: AshwoodsmithPeter
Subject: RE: Recap this morning's call

Hi Young,
You’ve captured all pretty accurately. I nominate you for the ACTN scribe job :=)

Igor

From: Leeyoung [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:09 PM
To: Igor Bryskin; Daniele Ceccarelli
Cc: AshwoodsmithPeter
Subject: Recap this morning's call

Hi Igor,

Thanks for this morning’s call. I just wanted to recap what was agreed upon. Please feel free to correct if anything needs to be corrected.

We have identified several models to be implemented in ACTN control hierarchy (CNC-MDSC-PNC). Among them are, but not limited to:


1.      Topology Model

2.      Provisioning Model

3.      Service Model

4.      OAM Model

5.      Client Mapping/Policy Model

There could be more to the list. We can identify and add later on if we will.

Now, with these models, different components (i.e., different controller type) will implement whatever relevant models and support its interfaces. For instance, PNC may need not support Client mapping/policy model while CNC may not need to support Provisioning model.

We also agree that MDSC can interface another MDSC or PNCs with transparency. MDSC should not be able to distinguish if it interfaces MDSC or PNCs (i.e., the same interface).

And you also said, CNC interfacing MDSC should be essentially the same interface as MDSC interfacing another MDSC or PNCs.

Let us start from here. Then we can discuss further.

Thanks,
Young