Re: [Anima] Self-Managed Networks

[John Strassner <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> If we have two or more ACPs, what could go wrong?

An ACP is just like a domain. So, of course you will have multiple
ACPs. The open question is whether we want simple inter-domain
communication and/or federated domains. FOCALE did both.

> Furthermore, I suggest you to think about ETSI NFV model,
> "infrastructure" and "VNF" division of networks.

Yuck (that was the technical answer); see below

> What is wrong in using that kind of model here which is a
> reasonable breakdown

I could go on for 20 pages, since I participed in SWA, MANO, and
INF in Phase 1 and have looked at IFA and EVE in phase 2. A
small summary:

   - VNFs are not ASAs; please explain why you think they are
   - The reference points defined in NFV are vague at best;
      certainly one could not write software against them
   - The APIs are ill-formed
   - The model is horrible. There isn't even a decent set of model
     requirements (e.g., how on earth could someone say you have
     an information model (thankfully changed after 6 months of
     arguing to an "information element") that does not even define
     a data type for the entity?
   - There is no relation to any business concepts
   - There is no policy element

> instead of sticking with ACP  that is becoming very difficult to define?

I fail to see what is so confusing about the ACP definition, sorry.

regards,
John

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Toy, Mehmet <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Before I pick each of your statement and express my thoughts, I would like
> to ask more questions by picking your  statement " There is *one* ACP,
> there are *many* autonomic functions on top.".   Assume we  start building
> on this to see how far we can go, whether this holds for all cases or not,
> I don't know.
>
> If we have two or more ACPs, what could go wrong? What is it that you are
> trying to do here? What is the purpose behind this model?
>
> Furthermore, I suggest you to think about ETSI NFV model, "infrastructure"
> and "VNF" division of networks.  What is wrong in using that kind of model
> here which is a reasonable breakdown, instead of sticking with ACP  that is
> becoming very difficult to define?
>
> Thanks
> Mehmet
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Behringer (mbehring) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:57 AM
> To: Toy, Mehmet; Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Self-Managed Networks
>
> Toy, thanks for raising those questions. Obviously, we're not doing a good
> job yet in describing what the ACP is, and that needs to be fixed. And
> obviously, we all need the same view to progress further. So this is a very
> important discussion, and I really welcome it.
>
> Before formalising better text, let me see whether we get agreement on the
> fundamental idea.
>
> In my head, there are two layers: The ACP, and on top of that the
> Autonomic Functions:
>
> * The ACP is the "tool kit". It comprises various "mechanics", such as
> negotiation, synchronisation, discovery of various sorts, messaging, etc.
> Those are all based on a common addressing and naming concept.
>
> * Autonomic Functions use that tool kit to do something clever. In other
> words, the true autonomic "intelligence" sits on that level.
>
> There is *one* ACP, there are *many* autonomic functions on top.
>
> One way to decide to which layer something belongs is to ask: "is this (1)
> a generic functionality which many functions require, or is this (2) one
> specific function?". If the answer is (1), it belongs into the ACP, if (2)
> it belongs into an autonomic function.
>
> So, in this light, my understanding (!) of fault management is that this
> is an autonomic function, and would use common blocks of the underlying
> ACP. Conversely, it would not offer services to other autonomic functions
> on top. This is my way of thinking when I write "this is an autonomic
> function".  And I'm not 100% certain I understand what you're suggesting,
> so please chime in here! (And I haven't read your draft fully yet, sorry)
>
> Look at
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jiang-anima-prefix-management-01.txt
> This draft describes "intelligence". In that case, a way to automatically
> manage address space. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 explain which parameters and
> information exchanges such a function would require. Sheng wrote this
> document to explain how an autonomic function would use a common ACP.
>
> Probably we should take some off-line time in Yokohama to discuss this in
> a small team?
>
> Michael
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anima [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Toy, Mehmet
> > Sent: 15 October 2015 04:26
> > To: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>; Michael Behringer
> > (mbehring) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Anima] Self-Managed Networks
> >
> > Michael and Brian,
> > Per Toerless suggestion, I am including ANIMA group into the discussion.
> >
> > I re-read the "A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking" document
> > and I am not clear about the definitions.
> >
> > a)  In the "A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking", ACP is
> > defined as "The Autonomic Control Plane is the summary of all
> > interactions of the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure with other nodes
> and services.".
> >
> > b) Brian, you write as " The ACP is common infrastructure for all
> > autonomic functions.(The ACP needs to be self-repairing, of course.)
> > The signaling protocol is also common infrastructure."
> >
> > Question: What is ACP? a or b or combination?
> >
> > c) Section 4 in the reference model document , "The Autonomic
> > Networking Infrastructure provides a layer of common  functionality
> > across an Autonomic Network.  It comprises "must implement" functions
> > and services, as well as extensions."
> > Question: What are the "must implement" functionalities?  How do you
> > define "must implement" functionalities?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mehmet
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:25 PM
> > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); Toy, Mehmet
> > Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'anima-
> > [e-mail]'
> > Subject: Re: Self-Managed Networks
> >
> > I agree with Michael. The ACP is common infrastructure for all
> > autonomic functions.
> > (The ACP needs to be self-repairing, of course.) The signaling
> > protocol is also common infrastructure.
> >
> >    Brian
> > On 15/10/2015 05:43, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
> > > I would argue they are part of an autonomic function, which runs on
> > > top of
> > the ACP.
> > > There are really two different pieces here, and this is I think the
> > > confusion
> > here:
> > >
> > > -          The ACP is self-managing. It needs to do self-healing, and
> > automatically adapt to new situations. But to me, this isn’t fault
> > management or performance management as an operator understands it.
> > >
> > > -          The network has FM and PM function. Those could be (and
> should
> > be, imo) autonomic functions. Those run on top of the ACP.
> > > Bottom line: I’d like to keep the ACP itself as minimalistic and
> > > simple as we
> > possibly can. Functions like FM / PM belong into an autonomic function,
> IMO.
> > > What do you think?
> > > Michael
> > > From: Toy, Mehmet [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 14 October 2015 18:30
> > > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring) <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>;
> > '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: RE: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Michael,
> > > Instead of answering the question as Yes or No, let me give examples
> > > to
> > see what makes sense.
> > > Let’s say in a data path, a router port is failed.  The router
> > > generates an AIS
> > (Alarm Indication Signal) and the receiving  end generates RDI (remote
> > Defect Indicator).  Both messages are generated by the hardware, not by a
> > software or ACP.   As a result of this failure,  there would be packet
> loss. The
> > hardware counts these losses, an ACP does not.
> > > For the FM and PM functions above, can we say they are part of an ACP?
> > > Thanks
> > > Mehmet
> > > From: Michael Behringer (mbehring) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:34 AM
> > > To: Toy, Mehmet
> > > Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'anima-
> > [e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
> > > Subject: RE: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Hi Toy,
> > > To understand better: To me, fault management *uses* the functions
> > > of
> > the AN infrastructure. It uses the ACP to communicate, maybe GRASP for
> > some signalling, might be influenced by Intent, etc. Right?  So to me,
> > this is a logical component of an autonomic network that sits on top
> > of the AN infrastructure.
> > > Do we agree?
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > From: Toy, Mehmet [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 13 October 2015 23:46
> > > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring)
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > Cc: '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > Subject: RE: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Michael,
> > > Appreciate the reply.
> > > FM is part of data plane and control plane (i.e. ANI in your diagram).
> > > My plan is to add a short paragraph for now either to section 2 to
> > > expand
> > the description  of ANI or to section 4 to add a sub-section for Fault
> > Management.
> > >
> > > It is also possible too add a Performance Management section to
> > > describe
> > what types of measurements and where and how are used.  Although there
> > is a control feedback related measurement in the document, I don’t
> > know if it is adequate.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Mehmet
> > > From: Michael Behringer (mbehring) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:27 PM
> > > To: Toy, Mehmet
> > > Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'anima-
> > [e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
> > > Subject: RE: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Sorry for the delay, it’s very busy at the moment here.
> > > To me, fault management refers generally to faults on the data
> > > plane, ie for
> > user traffic. I see that happening at some point as an autonomic
> > function (or several, for different aspects). Would you agree? Or do
> > you see that as a function inside the AN infrastructure?
> > > So my feeling is that function would reside on top of the
> > > infrastructure that
> > we’re currently defining. So, please have a look whether your thoughts
> > can be described as an autonomic function. I think they probably can.
> > > Then I suggest we do the same that we’re planning to do with the NMS
> > section, the model discussion, etc: Have a short paragraph describe
> > the overall topic briefly, and point to an external doc for now, i.e.,
> > probably your draft.
> > > If you agree, can you suggest where in the reference model you would
> > > add
> > a short paragraph about fault management, and I suppose we’d point to
> > your draft, right?
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Toy, Mehmet [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 13 October 2015 03:53
> > > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring)
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > Cc: '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > '[e-mail]'
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > Subject: RE: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > > I am waiting for your response.
> > > Thanks
> > > Mehmet
> > >
> > > From: Toy, Mehmet
> > > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 8:13 PM
> > > To: '[e-mail]'
> > > Cc: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; 'anima-
> > [e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
> > > Subject: RE: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > > I can send you some text to include in section 2 and 4 of  “A
> > > Reference
> > Model for Autonomic Networking,   draft-behringer-anima-reference-
> > model-03”,  per Sheng’s suggestion.
> > > Should I just do that?
> > > Thanks
> > > Mehmet
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Toy, Mehmet
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:53 AM
> > > To: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
> > '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'
> > > Cc: '[e-mail]'
> > > Subject: Re: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Sheng,
> > > Appreciate a quick response.
> > > I will work on your suggestion.
> > > Mehmet
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 06:08 AM Eastern Standard Time
> > > To: Toy, Mehmet;
> > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > > ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
> > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > Subject: RE: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Hi, Toy,
> > > First of all, for my understanding, your work is in the scope of the
> > > WG
> > charter. However, we do not have work item or milestone for it. It
> > looks like an upper-layer autonomic service agent for me. In our plan,
> > autonomic service agents are mainly for the next period, which is
> > after re-charter (this is the same with your suggestion of modifying
> > the charter, but it cannot happen until we deliver the current
> > milestones). For now, the best may be try to add some description,
> > maybe mainly abstracted functionality, into the reference model document.
> > > Best regards,
> > > Sheng
> > >
> > > From: Toy, Mehmet [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 1:14 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > > ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
> > > Subject: Self-Managed Networks
> > >
> > > Dear All:
> > > I couldn’t attend the Prague meeting, but luckily Dan was able to
> > > present
> > my slides on “Self-Managed Networks with Fault Management Hierarchy”.
> > The feedback was to position the work in the ANIMA WG scope and
> > framework.
> > >
> > > ANIMA charter in “M. Behringer, et. al., A Reference Model for
> > > Autonomic
> > Networking
> > > draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-03” refers to “self-healing”.
> > RFC7575,  “M. Behringer, et al.,   Autonomic Networking: Definitions and
> > Design Goals”,  refers to “self-management”. However, both documents
> > do not  articulate fault management aspect of the self-management.  It
> > is possible to interpret the fault management aspect of autonomic
> > networks as part of “self-healing” and therefore as part of the ANIMA
> > charter.  In that case, the “Architectural Framework for Self-Managed
> > Networks with Fault Management Hierarchy,
> > draft-mtoy-anima-self-faultmang-framework-
> > 00.txt” contribution can target to fill that gap.  The control plane
> > aspect of self-healing is addressed by “M. Behringer, et al., An
> > Autonomic Control Plane,
> > draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane-03”.  I believe these
> > contributions are complementary to each other. I can try to address that
> in the contribution.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you agree with me. If not, I suggest to modify
> > > the
> > charter since without covering fault management aspect of the
> > autonomic networks, the concept of autonomic network will be incomplete.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Mehmet
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>



-- 
regards,
John