Re: [Actn] Regarding draft-lopez-actn-vno-multidomains

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:24 AM
To: Leeyoung; Diego R. Lopez
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Actn] Regarding draft-lopez-actn-vno-multidomains

Hi Diego and Young, 

Thanks for the reply, some comments inline to both the mails...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leeyoung
> Sent: 20 June 2014 10:01
> To: Diego R. Lopez; Dhruv Dhody
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Actn] Regarding draft-lopez-actn-vno-multidomains
> 
> Hi Dhruv,
> 
> I think Diego pretty much handled all your comments. One comment I 
> have is concerning your comment on
> 
> >> The operation and control/management of these multiple networks as 
> >> a single virtualized network.
> >> Since there will be multiple virtual networks, can we change to 'a 
> >> single
> virtualized network for a customer' instead?
> 
> I think the use-case discussed in 'draft-lopez-actn-vno-multidomains' 
> deals with having many different domains under its control and 
> addresses the need for a global operational view on all these domains. 
> In such context, a single virtualized network is for the operator and 
> there is no customer involved here per se. Each domain would provide 
> some abstraction to the VNO- coordinator in which to create a global network abstraction.
> 
> Let me know if this makes sense.
[DD] It does! But I was wondering if it helps to mention a reference to another use-case document (which mentions VN per tenant/customer) or just a sentence clarifying this? 

> Thanks,
> 
> Young
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ACTN [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Diego R. Lopez
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:13 PM
> To: Dhruv Dhody
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Actn] Regarding draft-lopez-actn-vno-multidomains
> 
> Hi Dhruv,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. We'll try to address them in the document as 
> soon as we can. A few replies inlined below...
> 
> On 18 Jun 2014, at 06:18 , Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Can we elaborate a bit more regarding the impact of NFV? Maybe 
> > mention especially virtualization of CE and PE devices? Coexistence 
> > of virtualized and non-virtualized network functions etc?
> 
> I'd prefer not to go for specifically mentioning concrete cases unless 
> you see a special aspect to be remarked (if you do, please let's talk about them).
> OTOH, you completely right: the coexistence or virtualized and non- 
> virtualized functions is a key aspect, and ACTN should definitely be 
> of help for making it easier.
> 
[DD] To me it adds another dimension to technology, administrative zones, vendor-islands etc. I leave the text changes to your better judgment. 
> >>    . The operation and control/management of these multiple networks
> >>       as a single virtualized network.
> >>
> >
> > Since there will be multiple virtual networks, can we change to 'a 
> > single virtualized network for a customer' instead?
> 
> Shall que use "per tenant", following the common virtualization jargon?
[DD] ok (see reply to Young's comment as well)
> 
> >>  Figure 2 shows operations hierarchy based on Figure 1. The two 
> >> main ideas are:
> >>
> >>  1. Domain control/management entities (e.g., DCN Domain Control A, B,
> >>    C and TN Domain Control) are kept intact to continue its domain
> >>    operations with its technology choice and policy, etc. As
> >>    discussed before domain control/management entities can be a form
> >>    of various types (e.g., SDN-controller, NMS/EMS, Control Plane, or
> >>    a combination of these entities, etc.) that is responsible for
> >>    domain-specific network operations.
> >>
> >>  2. The VNO Coordinator establishes a standard-based API (which is
> >>    termed as the Virtual Network Operations Interface (VNO-I) in
> >>    Figure 2) with each of the domain control/management entities. The
> >>    VNO coordination takes place via the VNO-I's.
> >
> > Can this be aligned to the framework document and clarify that VNO 
> > Coordinator is VNC while DCN and TN control are PNC?  VNO-I is 
> > VNC-PNC Interface (VPI)?
> 
> This alignment you request makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, 
> wherever there are one-to-one mappings we should use the framework 
> document terminology
[DD] Thanks, I agree.
> 
> > Also I was wondering if there exist another entity customer similar 
> > to the framework document?
> 
> I under the impression the customer entity is implicit here, and 
> therefore not mentioned...
[DD] Okay
> 
> >>       It is the responsibility of domain control/management entity to
> >>       create an abstraction of its network topology. The level of
> >>       abstraction varies from one domain to another, subject to local
> >>       domain policy. All EPs and gateway nodes to other domains need
> >>       to be represented at a minimum. The level of internal nodes and
> >>       links may be abstracted according to its domain policy.
> >
> > Do you think it is possible that domain-level control provides raw 
> > topology and VNO coordinator is responsible for global abstraction?
> 
> That's an option, that implies full trust between every domain control 
> entity and the VNO, but other degrees of trust can exist, where a 
> given domain control could not want to share the full detail of its 
> underlying topology to a VNO.
[DD] Suggest we word the text such that both models can exist. 
> 
> Be goode,
> 
> 
> --
> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
> 
> Dr Diego R. Lopez
> Telefonica I+D
> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
> 
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> Tel:    [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede 
> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico 
> en el enlace situado más abajo.
> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send 
> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
> _______________________________________________
> ACTN mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/actn