Re: [Casm] New Version Notification for draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.txt

["Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>]

On 8 Feb 2017, at 11:01, Rakesh Kumar wrote:

> HI Marc, Dr Xie,
>
> I find these last few email exchanges a bit confusing.
> Are we discussing centralization because of Brian’s earlier comment 
> about removing “centralized”?
>
> To me, as long as there is accurate information related to address 
> space in one place (central repository), it does not matter how all 
> the parts of “address management system” work.

right. indirectly, you are saying the same thing as I tried to say. 
Route injection may happen at various places, various policies.

Marc.

>
> I would like someone to propose what a distributed/hybrid approach 
> look like for address management. I mean an architectural framework so 
> that we can understand and debate it.

>
> Thanks
> Rakesh
>
> On 2/8/17, 6:09 AM, "Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     On 8 Feb 2017, at 8:59, Xie Chongfeng wrote:
>
>     > From our experience, the centralized address management system 
> need to
>     > verify this by communicating with the routing system, to avoid 
> any
>     > abnormity.
>
>     sure. I’m just trying to say that route injection does not have 
> to be
>     centralized. up to the operator.
>
>     Marc.
>
>     > Chongfeng
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > [e-mail]
>     >
>     > From: Marc Blanchet
>     > Date: 2017-02-08 21:54
>     > To: Xie Chongfeng
>     > CC: Rakesh Kumar; Liushucheng; [e-mail]; ian.farrer;
>     > [e-mail]
>     > Subject: Re: [Casm] New Version Notification for
>     > draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.txt
>     > On 8 Feb 2017, at 8:51, Xie Chongfeng wrote:
>     >
>     >> One of the basic requirments of centralized address management 
> is
>     >> that
>     >> the mechanism shouled be aligned with the routing system, for
>     >> instance, when one address block is allocated to an network 
> equiment,
>     >> the routing entry correspondent to this address block will be
>     >> broadcasted accordingly, otherwise, the network will not work
>     >> correctly.
>     >
>     > well, yes. but that route injection can be done by the network
>     > equipment
>     > into the routing realm. So in this case, the route injection is 
> not
>     > centralized per se.
>     >
>     > Marc.
>     >
>     >> Similarly,when one address block is withdrawl from an given 
> network
>     >> equipment, the routing entry will be withdrawl as well.
>     >>
>     >> Chongfeng Xie
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [e-mail]
>     >>
>     >> From: Rakesh Kumar
>     >> Date: 2017-02-06 06:02
>     >> To: Xie Chongfeng; 'Liushucheng (Will)'; 
> [e-mail]
>     >> CC: [e-mail]; ian.farrer; normen.kowalewski; Rakesh Kumar
>     >> Subject: Re: [Casm] New Version Notification for
>     >> draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.txt
>     >> Hi Dr Xie, Will
>     >>
>     >> We put two drafts based on earlier discussions.
>     >>
>     >> 1.
>     >> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-casm-problem-and-use-cases-00
>     >> : Basically draft identifies the traditional  IP address 
> management
>     >> tools (proprietary and open source) and what they lack. I 
> think,
>     >> almost every network deployment would need some sort of address
>     >> management so talked about use-cases not from deployment but 
> from
>     >> implementation perspective. Basically approach taken in this 
> draft
>     >> regarding problem and use-cases is a bit different than
>     >> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-ps-centralized-address-management.
>     >> 2.
>     >> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-casm-requirements-and-framework-00
>     >> : We have listed a set of requirement from a modern address
>     >> management
>     >> system that can be used for diverse set of deployments (Data 
> Center,
>     >> Metro Access, BNG, 3GPP, Enterprise branch & campus etc.). We 
> have
>     >> also specified an architecture framework to define and develop
>     >> “CASM”.
>     >>
>     >> In summary, at top level this work looks similar to the earlier 
> one
>     >> but there are differences in approaches.
>     >>
>     >> Thanks & Regards,
>     >> Rakesh
>     >>
>     >> From: Xie Chongfeng <[e-mail]>
>     >> Date: Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 6:35 PM
>     >> To: Rakesh Kumar <[e-mail]>et>, "'Liushucheng (Will)'"
>     >> <[e-mail]>om>, "[e-mail]"
>     >> <[e-mail]>
>     >> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>, "ian.farrer"
>     >> <[e-mail]>de>, "normen.kowalewski"
>     >> <[e-mail]>
>     >> Subject: Re: Re: [Casm] New Version Notification for
>     >> draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.txt
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Yes, I agree to  combine all ideas into one set of drafts to 
> push
>     >> forward this work.
>     >>
>     >> BUT  I didn't find any major difference between CASM and the 
> old
>     >> drafts, major use cases of centralized address management has 
> been
>     >> considered in the old PS draft
>     >> 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-ps-centralized-address-management/),
>     >> including the DNS and NAT. CT put forward the use case of 
> address
>     >> management in metro network,  Ian and norman of DT raised the 
> case of
>     >> address management for OpenStack, OSS,etc.
>     >>
>     >> So, I think it is necessary to clarify the relationship of 
> these
>     >> drafts. Thank you!
>     >>
>     >> Chongfeng
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> [e-mail]
>     >>
>     >> From: Rakesh Kumar
>     >> Date: 2017-02-03 14:37
>     >> To: Liushucheng (Will); Marc Blanchet; Xie Chongfeng
>     >> CC: [e-mail]
>     >> Subject: Re: [Casm] New Version Notification for
>     >> draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.txt
>     >> Hi Will,
>     >>
>     >> The draft we wrote was based on the slide set we had presented
>     >> earlier, that details a comprehensive approach to address 
> management
>     >> including with other address services such as DNS and NAT. We 
> have
>     >> also introduced the concept of interfaces based on user 
> requirements.
>     >>
>     >> I think, it would be good idea to combine all ideas into one 
> set of
>     >> drafts.
>     >>
>     >> I think, CASM would also be useful for mining data for security
>     >> related analytics.
>     >>
>     >> Thanks
>     >> Rakesh
>     >>
>     >> On 2/2/17, 10:26 PM, "CASM on behalf of Liushucheng (Will)"
>     >> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>     Hi Rakesh,
>     >>
>     >>     Many thanks for your efforts!
>     >>
>     >>     No worries. Let's review and update in next version. And 
> maybe
>     >> another online meeting in next week.
>     >>
>     >>     Btw, there are also some old work on this area as we 
> discussed:
>     >>     
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-ps-centralized-address-management/
>     >>     
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-arch/
>     >>     
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang/
>     >>
>     >>     Would you please let the audience know about the 
> differences
>     >> between new ones and old ones?
>     >>
>     >>     Regards,
>     >>     Will (LIU Shucheng)
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     -----Original Message-----
>     >>     From: CASM [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marc
>     >> Blanchet
>     >>     Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:02 PM
>     >>     To: Rakesh Kumar <[e-mail]>
>     >>     Cc: [e-mail]
>     >>     Subject: Re: [Casm] New Version Notification for
>     >> draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.txt
>     >>
>     >>     On 30 Jan 2017, at 1:43, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
>     >>
>     >>     > It looks like we messed up on the name. My mistake.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > It should have been
>     >>     > “draft-kumar-casm-requirements-and-framework-00” 
> instead of
>     >>     > “draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00”.
>     >>     > Is there a way to correct it?
>     >>
>     >>     yeah. no big deal. we shall fix it for the new rev.
>     >>
>     >>     Marc.
>     >>
>     >>     >
>     >>     > Thanks
>     >>     > Rakesh
>     >>     >
>     >>     > On 1/29/17, 8:03 PM, "CASM on behalf of Rakesh Kumar"
>     >>     > <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 
> wrote:
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >     On 1/29/17, 7:53 PM, "[e-mail]"
>     >>     > <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >         A new version of I-D,
>     >>     > draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.txt
>     >>     >         has been successfully submitted by Marc Blanchet 
> and
>     >> posted to
>     >>     > the
>     >>     >         IETF repository.
>     >>     >
>     >>     >         Name: draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework
>     >>     >         Revision: 00
>     >>     >         Title: Centralized Address Space Management(CASM)
>     >>     > Requirements and Framework
>     >>     >         Document date: 2017-01-29
>     >>     >         Group: Individual Submission
>     >>     >         Pages: 8
>     >>     >         URL:
>     >>     >
>     >> 
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.txt
>     >>     >         Status:
>     >>     >
>     >> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework/
>     >>     >         Htmlized:
>     >>     >
>     >> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >         Abstract:
>     >>     >            The organizations use IP Address Space 
> Management
>     >> (IPAM)
>     >>     > tools to
>     >>     >            manage their IP address space, often with
>     >> proprietary
>     >>     > database and
>     >>     >            interfaces.  This document describes evolution 
> of
>     >> IPAM into
>     >>     > a
>     >>     >            standardized interfaces for centralized 
> management
>     >> of
>     >> IP
>     >>     > addresses.
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >         Please note that it may take a couple of minutes 
> from
>     >> the time
>     >>     > of submission
>     >>     >         until the htmlized version and diff are available 
> at
>     >>     > tools.ietf.org.
>     >>     >
>     >>     >         The IETF Secretariat
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >>     >     CASM mailing list
>     >>     >     [e-mail]
>     >>     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>     > _______________________________________________
>     >>     > CASM mailing list
>     >>     > [e-mail]
>     >>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm
>     >>
>     >>     _______________________________________________
>     >>     CASM mailing list
>     >>     [e-mail]
>     >>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm
>     >>     _______________________________________________
>     >>     CASM mailing list
>     >>     [e-mail]
>     >>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm