Re: [Actn] ACTN progress

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Daniele.

Also the framework might be applied to a single domain to get the
Abstraction and the Virtualization function without the need for
multi-domain coordination, though that is not the main motivation for
the ACTN work.

Happy Sunday!!

~Dhruv

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Arashmid, all,
>
>
>
> Up to now we have always considered the 3-level model but it is possible to
> say that is also include the 2-level model. From an implementation point of
> view we can have a CNC interfacing with a single controller which implements
> MDSC and PNC functionalities (basically able to speak with CNC and with
> nodes at the same time).
>
> I don’t see any issue in allowing for a controller to be both PNC and MDSC
> at the same time.
>
>
>
> BR
> Daniele
>
>
>
> From: ACTN [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Arashmid Akhavain
> Sent: venerdì 16 gennaio 2015 19:55
> To: 윤빈영; Leeyoung; Igor Bryskin; [e-mail]
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Actn] ACTN progress
>
>
>
> I don’t think Young’s comment meant to collapse the 3-level model to a
> 2-level model. The interface design will be the same. But I think that is
> different from saying that CNC can bypass the MDSC and talk to PNC directly.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Arashmid
>
>
>
>
>
> From: ACTN [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ???
> Sent: 16 January 2015 03:23
> To: Leeyoung; Igor Bryskin; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Actn] ACTN progress
>
>
>
> Hi Young,
>
>
>
> You newly define the term of “transparency (direct talk between CNC and PNC)
> ”.
>
> It makes sense that the CNC directly interfaces with the PNC.
>
> To me, it is like that MDSC is not used any more for this case.
>
> So we can define two types of ACTN control hierarchy as follows.
>
>
>
> - Three-level model: CNC-MDSC-PNC(current model)
>
> – Two-level model: CNC-PNC(for the case that MDSC is transparent)
>
>
>
> If it is right, the framework document should be modified to support the
> two-level model in terms of functionalities and architecture, as it
> currently describes only the three-level model.
>
> In the current framework document, the PNC of the three-level model supports
> only two functionalities including “multi domain coordination function” and
> “virtualization/abstraction function”.
>
> However, the PNC of the two-level model needs to support four
> functionalities for the direct interface to the CNC, as the CNC additionally
> requires “customer VN mapping function” and “virtual service coordination
> function”. Therefore, the document should be in line with the two-level
> model.
>
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong.
>
>
>
> Sincerely yours
>
>
>
> From: Leeyoung [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:00 AM
> To: Igor Bryskin; 윤빈영; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Actn] ACTN progress
>
>
>
> Hi Bin and Igor,
>
>
>
> I agree with Igor on his short reply to Bin. Please see inline for my
> comment, Bin.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Young
>
>
>
> From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 7:54 AM
> To: 윤빈영; Leeyoung; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Actn] ACTN progress
>
>
>
> Hi Bin,
>
> Your understanding is correct. Conceptually, the interfaces are the same.
> Practically, a given interface may support only a sub-set of functionality.
>
>
>
> Igor
>
>
>
> From: ACTN [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ???
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:51 PM
> To: Leeyoung; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Actn] ACTN progress
>
>
>
> Hi Young,
>
>
>
> I like to catch up with you.
>
> So I like to translate your saying into my words for my clear understanding
> as follows.
>
>
>
> For future ACTN work, we will keep the same architecture consisting of
> CNC-MDSC-PNC,
>
> and the interfaces between them should be the same as Igor insists.
>
> Each controller has the same functions conceptually,
>
> but some functions may not be used depending on the type of
> controller(MDSC/PNC).
>
>
>
> YOUNG>> Yes.
>
>
>
> In order to implement the models(Provisioning, OAM, etc.) required for
> transport SDN,
>
> ACTN will describe the interface of each controller based on the
> architecture of CNC-MDSC-PNC.
>
> The interfaces between the controllers may be different practically due to
> some functions not used.
>
>
>
> YOUNG>> Yes, but it would great if we can design the interfaces
> transparently so that one interface design will accommodate all functions.
>
>
>
> We can say like the following if those above are true.
>
> Some can implement a super(general) transport SDN controller to support all
> the functions,
>
> while other can implement specific purposed(targeted) controllers such as
> PNC and MDSC.
>
> For the former, the CMI is the same as the MPI.
>
> For the latter, the CMI may not be the same as the MPI due to some functions
> not used.
>
> ACTN will follow the latter for T-SDN implementation incorporating existing
> control systems like GMPLS and EMS/NMS.
>
>
>
> YOUNG>> For the latter, we can design the MDSC-PNC interface as if CNC
> talking to PNC(s) directly, (which is termed as ‘transparency’) so that one
> interface design would fit to all cases. There may be some functions not
> used, which is fine, but we would say it is one interface design.
>
>
>
> Correct me if there is any misunderstanding.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bin
>
>
>
> From: Leeyoung [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:12 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ACTN mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/actn
>