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

"Xie Chongfeng" <> Wed, 15 February 2017 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD1B12961B for <>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:10:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CJnJezIRJ7k8 for <>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74303129607 for <>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:10:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clientip- (unknown []) by (HERMES) with ESMTP id 69371280029; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:09:50 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ip<> ([]) by App0021(MEDUSA with ESMTP id 02fe818b-1a98-443d-8ac6-b9ac608ede45 for; Wed Feb 15 22:10:20 2017
0/X-Total-Score: 0:
X-FILTER-SCORE: to=<8e8293844f838d828f8489869561978a8288868f8a864f8482>, score=<14871678206yijklmqT55555655y55i5psW4ADGykgggggpggsggWg>
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:09:51 +0800
From: "Xie Chongfeng" <>
To: "" <>, bclaise <>, "" <>
References: <>, <>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 7, 166[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart555242301083_=----"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "'Liushucheng \(Will\)'" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Casm] =?utf-8?q?Which_interfaces_does_CASM_plan_on_standardizing?= =?utf-8?b?P++BoQ==?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Address Space Management <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:10:38 -0000

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
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?
On 14 Feb 2017, at 6:57, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
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