IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Casm] I-D Action: draft-kumar-casm-problem-and-use-cases-00.txt

Rakesh Kumar <rkkumar@juniper.net> Wed, 08 February 2017 05:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rkkumar@juniper.net>
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 B2AC6129987 for <casm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:34:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.887, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
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 Ul4VSZ7zPe4q for <casm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03on0126.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E73129982 for <casm@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:34:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=c9WphXJRD/oN+Wi/4tu9s0PQdgLe3hCaVqs3nzBu6S8=; b=kurCpl31YSKTDuqGOh3FlUclkB9fOrOnQT8KNjb5tguoSmFA12k5nySJsteCWwTWUNc8HWK3lpu3UYP7Po3qQU4LDKVyxmnscnOGjT0fQcCLNCcLk3S3/9qqZTJ8Rhobz70nI1eds7Y2a5aFsSKLNo7eVSCi8JST0wci30GS+zY=
Received: from BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.19.11) by BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.19.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.888.5; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:34:40 +0000
Received: from BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.19.11]) by BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.19.11]) with mapi id 15.01.0888.026; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 05:34:40 +0000
From: Rakesh Kumar <rkkumar@juniper.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "casm@ietf.org" <casm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Casm] I-D Action: draft-kumar-casm-problem-and-use-cases-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSgbs029+BsU2Ivk2AItW4jd+AbqFeEIKA
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 05:34:40 +0000
Message-ID: <232C0385-898B-47F4-A749-8EB717E2E4AF@juniper.net>
References: <148574839840.918.971558680259361531.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <ad60d4d3-b2b5-150d-0bed-2254e91b7aa4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ad60d4d3-b2b5-150d-0bed-2254e91b7aa4@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.18.0.160709
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rkkumar@juniper.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [73.241.94.21]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 480b3685-2cf4-4712-9dbf-08d44fe42dfb
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081); SRVR:BN6PR05MB2993;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR05MB2993; 7: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
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR05MB299342C947A03051D0AB13BDAD420@BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(131327999870524);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(2017020702029)(5005006)(20170203043)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123558025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BN6PR05MB2993; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR05MB2993;
x-forefront-prvs: 0212BDE3BE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39850400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39860400002)(39410400002)(199003)(24454002)(377454003)(189002)(2501003)(105586002)(2900100001)(82746002)(8676002)(81156014)(83716003)(92566002)(3660700001)(5660300001)(25786008)(305945005)(99286003)(6306002)(6512007)(7736002)(38730400002)(53546003)(6246003)(6506006)(8936002)(83506001)(6436002)(77096006)(39060400001)(81166006)(6486002)(3846002)(102836003)(229853002)(6116002)(2906002)(53936002)(3280700002)(66066001)(86362001)(68736007)(230783001)(122556002)(97736004)(76176999)(54356999)(2950100002)(189998001)(36756003)(106116001)(106356001)(50986999)(4001350100001)(33656002)(101416001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR05MB2993; H:BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5D50B97D32B3DE4A84696C6C1B26758E@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Feb 2017 05:34:40.6443 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR05MB2993
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/casm/H3DBn3QebjhzI22UsTXRG12voCU>
Subject: Re: [Casm] I-D Action: draft-kumar-casm-problem-and-use-cases-00.txt
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 05:34:45 -0000

Hi Brian,

Please see my response with [Rakesh].

Thanks
Rakesh

On 2/7/17, 7:26 PM, "CASM on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <casm-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi,
    
    > The address space management is an intergral part of any network
    > management solution.
    
    We can certainly agree on that. I also think that the separation into
    various domains in the draft is useful, with one or two comments:
    
    > DHCP server pool
    > Static address configuration
    
    Perhaps you should point out that static != manual.
[Rakesh] I mean address assigned without protocol (DHCP). I agree with your statement.
    
    > Public IP address pool
    
    That seems too broad. At least, there are two aspects:
    1) addresses assigned to network infrastructure elements (routers etc.)
    2) addresses/prefixes assigned to edge devices (carriers) or to
       end-user interfaces (enterprise networks).
[Rakesh] I have thought about this but this apply to addressing aspects in general not necessarily for Public IP pool only.

    Also, you should add the Private address pool
    (RFC1918/RFC6598 for IPv4, or ULA for IPv6).
[Rakesh] Ok.

    > Multicast IP address pool
    
    > SDN controllers
    
    That title is too specific; any virtual or software-managed address
    space should be covered, not just SDN. However, this may in reality be
    a subset of Public address pool or Private address pool.
[Rakesh] In my mind, I was thinking who all would be the clients for address management functionality/service.
    
    Now I have a rather fundamental question to finish: Why do you assume
    that the solution must be 'centralized'? Certainly, the policy intent
    for a network must be centralized, and the initial address pool must
    be configured from a central point. But why must the management be
    centralized? I do not think that is a requirement at all. A distributed
    solution would be just fine.
[Rakesh]  I already responded to this in previous thread.

    Regards
       Brian Carpenter
    
    _______________________________________________
    CASM mailing list
    CASM@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email