Re: [Anima] The layer 2 ACP

William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca> Tue, 09 April 2019 11:55 UTC

Return-Path: <william.atwood@concordia.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C6F120786 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 ddS0CaqgznE7 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A07120058 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (bill@grace.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.2.217] port 53391) by oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (envelope-from william.atwood@concordia.ca) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id x39Bt8aW031968 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:55:08 -0400
To: anima@ietf.org
References: <8b4b8993-2dce-e7d7-1944-e41b65029c8c@gmail.com>
From: William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal
Message-ID: <fcf08677-b0ae-ffbb-7b75-09b5c45878ee@concordia.ca>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 07:55:08 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8b4b8993-2dce-e7d7-1944-e41b65029c8c@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2019-04-09 07:55:08 EDT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/gMlnUrU2GddnAgURyMftzSKeTt0>
Subject: Re: [Anima] The layer 2 ACP
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 11:55:12 -0000

Clearly, the availability of a Layer 2 ACP would enable a community of
people who would like to experiment or develop, but who do not have
access to 1000+ processors.

Also, it seems to me that the "initial conditions" for a Layer 2
solution (preconfigured VLAN ID, password, etc.) are likely to be the
same as those for a geographically-distributed overlay solution.
Development of a Layer 2 solution could help/encourage the development
of an "overlay ACP", which could ease the development of new Autonomic
Functions.

So, given that I am a university professor with limited resources, I
think that this proposal is a *very* good idea.

  Bill

On 07/04/2019 4:46 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Since there was no time for the presentation in Prague, I'd like to start
> a discussion here about the idea of a Layer 2 ACP. In terms of the new charter,
> this idea fits into "Works extending ANI, including variation of ANI deployment".
> 
> The draft is at
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-anima-l2acp-scenarios .
> The slides are at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-anima-scenarios-and-requirements-for-layer-2-autonomic-control-planes-00 .
> 
> The basic argument is that GRASP must run over a secure ACP substrate,
> but the regular Layer 3 ACP is complex and aimed at large networks.
> A simpler Layer 2 solution would be good for a small enterprise or
> for an enterprise that prefers to segment its network into small units
> for management.
> 
> One important difference from the regular ACP is that the nodes will need
> to be preconfigured before deployment with a VLAN ID, and a password or
> encryption key if necessary. Whether this can be automated is for further
> study (but Kent Watsen's suggestion for draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch
> might help with this).
> 
> Please have a look at the draft and comment on whether this is a good
> idea and whether you'd like to contribute.  
>  
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 

-- 

Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185     email:william.atwood@concordia.ca
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8