Re: [Casm] Which interfaces does CASM plan on standardizing?

"Xie Chongfeng" <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn> Tue, 28 February 2017 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
X-Original-To: casm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: casm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65A212947E; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:21:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 E1JdJNvx4M1c; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.220]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AAF12943C; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:21:33 -0800 (PST)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.218:13871.795449076
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-219.142.69.77 (unknown [172.18.0.218]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with ESMTP id CCF08280098; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:20:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ip<219.142.69.77> ([172.18.0.218]) by App0025(MEDUSA 0.0.0.0) with ESMTP id 2b576280-38d6-4b36-9f00-352eb9d7661f for brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com; Tue Feb 28 09:21:28 2017
0/X-Total-Score: 0:
X-FILTER-SCORE: to=<83938a828f4f864f84829391868f95869361888e828a8d4f84908e>, score=<1488244888Oa7wdXXXXXsXXoXXIXsoI97xymHHHHHbHHtHH4Hbt4uC>
X-Real-From: xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.218
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:20:59 +0800
From: "Xie Chongfeng" <xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, bclaise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "CASM@ietf.org" <CASM@ietf.org>
References: <2111FF63-4AAA-4C50-8358-39CD55397D82@juniper.net>, <B39211B7-A3CD-4C94-B5CF-470EB319244A@viagenie.ca>, <2017021522094618095419@chinatelecom.cn>, <1aed9ffa-5c0f-40ea-6afd-0af58930961a@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 7, 166[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2017022809122853035318@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart501052077270_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/casm/5Ol9ARJH51FcR3DIa-uz0pzJFqM>
Cc: "lichen.bri@chinatelecom.cn" <lichen.bri@chinatelecom.cn>, draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management <draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management@ietf.org>, "'Liushucheng \(Will\)'" <liushucheng@huawei.com>, "wanghn.bri@chinatelecom.cn" <wanghn.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
Subject: Re: [Casm] =?utf-8?q?Which_interfaces_does_CASM_plan_on_standardizing?= =?utf-8?b?P++BoQ==?=
X-BeenThere: casm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Address Space Management <casm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/casm>, <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/casm/>
List-Post: <mailto:casm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm>, <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:21:46 -0000

Hi,  Carpenter,

It is nice to receive your comments. 

CASM and ANIMA differ with each otherin the following aspects. 

Firstly, ANIMA is a self-managing in  
AUTONOMIC networking environment, the configurations to network elements 
are mainly done by the network elements themselves. while in CASM, in order 
to make the task easier, we propose the use centralizedserver or platform to do 
the configuration task, of course, the server may be distributed physically. 


Secondly, they have different use case, more the 3 
years ago, I had a long talk with Dr. Jiang Sheng in Beijing, and propose 
that the IP RAN may be a suitable use case to ANIMA, although the name 
didn't exist yet.  the primary use case for CASM is the address pool 
configuration for broadband IP network, CT has implemented the whole system 
based on the current CASM dratfs, and 3 vendors have joined the field test 
last year. The field trial prove this approach can solve the issues we 
are concernd with.

The detailed description of the interface is shown in,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang/


Thank you!

Chongfeng  
 




xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn
 
发件人: Brian E Carpenter
发送时间: 2017-02-28 07:54
收件人: Xie Chongfeng; marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca; bclaise; CASM@ietf.org
抄送: lichen.bri@chinatelecom.cn; 'Liushucheng (Will)'; wanghn.bri@chinatelecom.cn; draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management
主题: Re: [Casm] Which interfaces does CASM plan on standardizing?
Hi Chongfeng,
 
> Network operation team needs configure manaually IP address pool in each  
> BRAS/vBRAS
 
Obviously that is a hopeless task. That's exactly why this is one
of the test cases for ANIMA. So can you please comment on the
level of detail needed in that interface? Is it similar to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-02#section-6.1
That is an example for an IPRAN operator.
 
Note, I'm not asking about technical details - just about the
level of abstraction.
 
Regards
   Brian Carpenter
 
On 16/02/2017 03:09, Xie Chongfeng wrote:
> 
> Hi,Benoit and all,
> 
> This subject was originally raised by China Telecom, our use case is clear and straightforward.  In CT's network, there are tens of thousands of BRAS equipments,which are the major gateway to the broadband users. When the vBRAS was introduced, the volume will be even higher. Network operation team needs configure manaually IP address pool in each  
> BRAS/vBRAS, which are time-consuming and low -efficient. Can DHCP solve this problem? The answer is NO, since DHCP deals with address allocation for end users.   
> 
> In order to autimate the configuration process and improve the IP adress usage, a centralized address pool managment approach may be more reasonable. We discucssed with verdors and carriers, we found that there have been some proprioritary inplementations, they differ in the south-bound interface, so  we propose to standardize the south-bound interface in the early stage, which will benefit to all the players.
> 
> Since the requirements are pressing to CT, we begun the filed trial last year and 3 vendors have implementated the interface defined in draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang, luckily they all passed the field test by our joint efforts.
> 
> As mentioned in other drafts of CASM, the address management capability will be  opened to other applications,such as SDN and Cloud , the  north-bound interface will be standanized as well.  
> 
> Of course, in order to define the interface and its relatvie workflow, a unified framwork or architecture will need to be defined in advance.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Chongfeng Xie 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> xiechf.bri@chinatelecom.cn
>  
> From: Marc Blanchet
> Date: 2017-02-14 20:24
> To: Rakesh Kumar
> CC: Liushucheng; Xie Chongfeng
> Subject: Re: IPAM design from microsoft
> will look into it. were you able to get Bloomsberg or else to support the work?
> Marc.
> On 14 Feb 2017, at 6:57, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
> HI,
>  
> I found a very good document on the web from Microsoft about IPAM. This is good document that explains some of the concept we have listed in the drafts.
> I thought, you guys might want to take a look at this for your reference.
>  
> Thanks & Regards
> Rakesh
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CASM mailing list
> CASM@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm
>