Re: [Casm] I-D Action: draft-kumar-casm-requirements-and-framework-00.txt

Rakesh Kumar <rkkumar@juniper.net> Wed, 08 February 2017 04:46 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 3C39A1298A9 for <casm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:46:30 -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 oFmlR4c8gMXV for <casm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:46:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0119.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D09791298AC for <casm@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:46:27 -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=D0hlKz/+Mk71k/djYKDI8L15fgHXqKVZgG2mld8lzAw=; b=JQWX/xUARazAVeoLS7mrGWcRhFa1btQGFhCnWbxHiKNn7mNG/f08fKyO7ZLFR9gi7VmfbzX/+UvIFxzxS0NJgoOKY2oomlYHo0e6+5bE42A1t+HvZDqZJ7acE2awXTmVf7OblhYP8WdM553qc95raen9beuwT9W0nxayvQbcQ1M=
Received: from BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.19.11) by BN6PR05MB2996.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.19.14) 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 04:46:25 +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 04:46:25 +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-requirements-and-framework-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSgcZNwpZEeESpp0S+rnhob28qIQ==
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 04:46:25 +0000
Message-ID: <3A82852D-C614-44B9-B5B2-907D884FC7C9@juniper.net>
References: <148579530142.29779.15228003608361236038.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <45ac9aef-907b-5a9d-7d07-fc8c54c3806d@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <45ac9aef-907b-5a9d-7d07-fc8c54c3806d@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: 4265f558-32c4-4bd9-857f-08d44fdd705d
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081); SRVR:BN6PR05MB2996;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR05MB2996; 7:58O9phKUwCiboI/c6UsNKUyJDYxy2z+CFw5Zl1RDwaEcuFR2sinCiL/xT7dF0/RyimWthFYgIorr1YZ1jM2NMyCAxViu/Dqsl4nYL01P6cIDaATa68dK2ufCBMAqKlpROIgNG8w9TrdQl8qApt5MofqHFLwZA6VH/PmeYUflMPW5tEyUoZHQRQuHJS8+vvBLzfSi3znBOq9Ta6hGzkw5rgNS/f8na0oSF1TixjDYgUOw4XEOW6d98cQQszxGy03xCaz+ITXJFQcO/jmmQGC5NV0DugzC4/QbD4J5q1oQmfrKLi8p/jjbPbX7avC2FakEToGF5e2vVrPuc36EEtGteYlal9R4fltzPJyBdMgCLrFeYGQBGjc0E9mNRGiaKWbWgJm2uWmhpWi2yf+H5Is9Xt8sdUy2dHdYXldfF0jJIILDMmax/9/ZOrHSnpcAlOn/H4P8KgsUpoXupT6cylU42zXpW/0oPPOtQOIwUJU2gaAGO/VTmd47C90sXzC2/vn7W3n2fsY4idBWhMA/hFOplQ==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR05MB29963816D257BDB22244E877AD420@BN6PR05MB2996.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(190756311086443);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(2017020702024)(20170203043)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123558025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:BN6PR05MB2996; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR05MB2996;
x-forefront-prvs: 0212BDE3BE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(39860400002)(39850400002)(39410400002)(39840400002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(24454002)(52314003)(2906002)(25786008)(39060400001)(106356001)(106116001)(105586002)(8676002)(229853002)(6246003)(81156014)(53546003)(81166006)(230783001)(76176999)(6506006)(33656002)(36756003)(86362001)(101416001)(2900100001)(4001350100001)(54356999)(50986999)(6486002)(77096006)(2950100002)(68736007)(66066001)(3660700001)(6436002)(97736004)(122556002)(2501003)(189998001)(82746002)(7736002)(83506001)(6116002)(305945005)(3846002)(102836003)(92566002)(83716003)(5660300001)(6512007)(53936002)(38730400002)(3280700002)(8936002)(6306002)(99286003)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR05MB2996; H:BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A: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: <333DF47013C61149896700C93EEBF3C9@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Feb 2017 04:46:25.6285 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR05MB2996
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/casm/LY1lmLQ4jbw6mA9CvOjYoK5UCyo>
Subject: Re: [Casm] I-D Action: draft-kumar-casm-requirements-and-framework-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 04:46:30 -0000

Hi Brian,

Thanks a lot for review and comments.
I apologize for missing your previous message (not sure if I saw it). Anyway, we had some private discussions before this email alias was created, some folks wanted to keep the word “centralized” to emphasize that a central entity should be responsible for managing network addresses. One of the benefit is single pane of glass that can be used for other use cases such as tracking a device/user through the network in real-time. 

But after seeing your comments, I am beginning to think that may be not all aspects of address management need to be centralized. If we were to develop an address management service, what can/should/must be centralized and what should be left up to implementations. I think it should be a good topic for debates and discussions and then decide how to address this in the draft.

I would really appreciate your help in driving this draft.

Thanks 
Rakesh
On 2/7/17, 7:40 PM, "CASM on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <casm-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi,
    
    > This document describes evolution of IPAM into a
    > standardized interfaces for centralized management of IP addresses.
    
    > CASM:   Centralized Address Space Management
    
    Please delete 'centralized'. It isn't necessary (as mentioned in my
    previous message) and it has the effect of limiting the range of
    solutions that can be considered. I will consider the document as
    if this word does not appear...
    
    And in fact I like the draft. I simply observe that this part of the model:
    
            +---+------------+-------+-------+---------------+------+
            |    Address Space Management (IPAM) System             |
            |      +-----------+ +----------+ +--------+            |
            |      | Pool      | |Address   | |Database|            |
            |      | Management| |Management| |        |            |
            |      +-----------+ +----------+ +--------+            |
            |                                                       |
            +-------------------------+-----------------------------+
    
    *does not need to be centralized* except for two points: providing
    the initial pool to the distributed system, and providing policy
    intent to the distributed system.
    
    And there's a draft describing a distributed solution, for a subset
    of the problem space:
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-02
    I understand that it's too soon for this list to discuss solutions,
    but I really do want the distributed approach to be on the table, since
    this is one of the early use cases for the Anima WG.
    
    Regards
       Brian Carpenter
    
    _______________________________________________
    CASM mailing list
    CASM@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm