Re: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 01 December 2014 12:53 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: actn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: actn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C071A1B5C for <actn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 04:53:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A0gR3Osq7uOa for <actn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 04:53:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CFD51A1AD0 for <actn@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 04:53:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB1CquUr027548; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:52:56 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB1Cqrmn027463 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:52:54 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Fatai Zhang' <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, actn@ietf.org
References: <039201d00a65$7a6d6a30$6f483e90$@olddog.co.uk> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CBAC33F@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CBAC33F@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:52:51 -0000
Message-ID: <073101d00d65$b956dd00$2c049700$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKc0R0Whwjuz8AJU4F2U/LeyBpU4wDQsIRxmtqel/A=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21142.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--28.796-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--28.796-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pS5owHKhBO2nykMun0J1wilrosmS0SOAC/ExpXrHizxnnK6mXN72m/m0 YT+bdWquyFgx1MiXCidRVLWpLTooRk4WmvfLLiwwEkuaUAMmMYromPrNi98UBOOxOq7LQlGLUvC u/SCF/o88dWj65WtFpOppq1TD5Y5Wtw2aqKcimLgve6W+IORwrbQ0n3DEfu2TJJvy/zCC/vIUza dNPrunh6fKPkBlo9cF1vAWquN+Nu46YefN37f58dOEZs/2oH3cbdSBfIhNX5YgUEQTkIWiYvHLu yTbltxTTso1Bs8tg9Ym+w11C2bOwRtlRBeFg9jMD9eI/GwXvmaIklyLMg3/df7spkgIRsSyyxDK WChexUTgj/GqxE5Hc/utuEFNZ1wsR3rV1Z80anJomJbPMdjPdAvWQayvnHh3IGzQ5T0/q1tfFG0 p9UU3w52YpHTUQ4VmGFrLZho0/8Oh2/8H3aXFXfp1plqEbuqxu56wFPSkMVFI51QyNYVlztO82l WRIPgzgPhXKIKrYewcAjafURYoSPDPsOf70zK9WwEoK+YJxNvJ5SXtoJPLyMUmcSma304Tuwhqy c+q/JDQUBgGLLWxa2QkszgUANdITc13JBBj+TRX0vBPb36vNtCXH/Oc92HYYXvKrYW+zbeXazD0 dQh+XAX0hTl8kfAQB1vg3gDcqQKZXRFMm5LTfFz+axQLnAVBE3NxsGztrMvczkKO5k4APogadOq Yi7qIlwQtmKA4w8w5SkA/M0rAZvtehid1W0/ACPKPqEbU3ZOgBWRVHG2+kXg3gd72fMTI2zUIfO RoaiIRW3Fo+hK3sB5hmP6OM/PJTX7PJ/OU3vL+xOhjarOnHrHlqZYrZqdI+gtHj7OwNO0CpgETe T0ynA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/actn/sX1iGlHl0wdAdTKuyEnt5PGl6Nc
Cc: akatlas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN
X-BeenThere: actn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: "Abstraction and Control of Transport Networks \(ACTN\)" <actn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/actn>, <mailto:actn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/actn/>
List-Post: <mailto:actn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:actn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/actn>, <mailto:actn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:53:06 -0000
Thanks for the discussion, Fatai. > Q: What is entirely new and needs the focus of a WG? > > [Fatai]: How to provide the Virtual Network to the customers respectively is > totally new for the IETF community, even though some of the work like Lx VPN > (especially L1VPN) had been defined/discussed in IETF. I think the Virtual > Network in the scope of ACTN is clearly beyond of L1 VPN, which provides L1 VPN > services/connections between CE devices. Therefore, from the functionality > perspective, I see some new things. firstly, I think the L1 VPN (concluded) + L0 > VPN could fit part of the *new* work. Secondly, how to return the Virtual > Network to the customer (e.g, creation and query) and how to manage the > Virtual Network (e.g., deletion, modification) is totally new, which needs > policy/business constraints. Thirdly, how to provision the service/connection over > the Virtual Network might be different from the provisioning connection over the > physical networks. Fourthly, data Model for the Virtual Network might be > another new thing. More new things might come later, :-) I think we need to be pretty careful in our definition of virtual network to avoid overlapping with work that (for example) BESS might do in terms of configuring and enabling L3VPNs. > Q: What is new but likely to be worked on in other WGs may be needing review > and guidance from an ACTN WG? > > [Fatai]: Setup the *Virtual* connection over the Virtual Network is new, but > could be defined in CCAMP/TEAS by extending RSVP-TE protocols or any other > WGs including ACTN itself by other means (e.g., centralized provisioning). > Something new related to routing might be worked in OSPF WG. Interesting. I see "set up" as different from "request/provision". The difference is that for "set up" one might use control plane signaling (RSVP-TE) or centralized provisioning (classic SDN). But for "request/provision" of connectivity we are missing a north-south request. The first is modifying existing work (see next question); the second is new work (this question). However, in both cases I think you are right that this falls into TEAS/CCAMP/MPLS. > Q: What is a delta on work done in other WGs that needs cooperative > development? > > [Fatai]: I don't see clear boundary between this question and the above question > (the second one). Clarification would be much appreciated. I hope the previous answer helps. The distinction is illustrated by: - Make modifications to existing protocols (such as extensions to PCEP) is a delta to work already done in other WGs. - Create something new (such as a YANG model for the TED) is new work that is in scope for an existing working group - Create an extension to a YANG model for a specific purpose might would be done in cooperation with the WG that owns the YANG model. > Q: What already exists but needs an applicability statement to demonstrate its > use? > > [Fatai]:No answer, :-) I think this might follow from a closer understanding of the interface requirements. It may be that we write the first version of an applicability statement that says "Do this with protocol foo; do that with extensions to protocol bar (pending work); do the other thing with a new protocol (pending work)". Then, as we advance we will be able to update the applicability statement to point to real work. Cheers, Adrian > Hello again, > > As promised here are some more thoughts on the progress of ACTN. > > I had a call today with the BoF chairs: Sergio and Dhruv were also there. We > discussed the details of the interfaces between the ACTN components a bit more > because my main thrust is to understand what work needs doing in a protocol > sense. > > My message is that I recognise the energy and use cases behind ACTN, but I do > not want to charter a working group to work on use cases and requirements. > From where I sit, that would be a huge waste of time and effort. We already > understand the use cases, so while it would be just fine to continue to work on > them, they are no longer a hurdle for forming a WG or for developing solutions. > What is more, the requirements work can be developed quickly and efficiently by > a small team and then discussed and reviewed on this mailing list. > > The intention, therefore, is to take the current framework draft and: > - refine it to make the architecture clearer > - there is at least the question of recursion to be dealt with > - expand on exactly what the client is asking for > - is it "just" abstract topology and connectivity, or is it also > related to "services"? > - add a lot more detail to the description of the functional interfaces > - what are the primitives? > - what i the information carried on the primitives? > > Young, Daniele, Sergio, and Dhruv already have some of this material in slides and > in notes as well as in their heads. So I'm hoping that it will not be a huge effort for > them to start to share this on the list and to add to the I-D. > > I'm hoping that this will serve to make it much clearer what work is actually > involved in delivering ACTN. What is entirely new and needs the focus of a WG? > What is new but likely to be worked on in other WGs may be needing review and > guidance from an ACTN WG? What is a delta on work done in other WGs that > needs cooperative development? What already exists but needs an applicability > statement to demonstrate its use? > > The answers to these questions will help us understand the value of a new > working group, and will form the basis of the deliverables and work items if one is > chartered. > > Young and Daniele have promised to try to bring their thoughts to this list in the > form of emails and a revised I-D. I really hope that we can build on the energy > that was in the room in Honolulu by having active discussion of the issues they > raise and by getting detailed and constructive reviews (e.g. suggest > text!) of the drafts they post. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > ACTN mailing list > ACTN@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/actn
- [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN Leeyoung
- [Actn] 答复: Status and plans for ACTN Fatai Zhang
- Re: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN Adrian Farrel
- [Actn] ***SPAM*** 7.446 (5) RE: Status and plans … 이광국 (통합전달망팀)
- Re: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN Zhangxian (Xian)