Re: [Casm] slides for CASM bof

"Liushucheng (Will Liu)" <> Sun, 26 March 2017 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8883C1296E7 for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w-ynIgaZRDHy for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0B581296E5 for <>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DDN42346; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 22:06:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 23:06:16 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 06:06:12 +0800
From: "Liushucheng (Will Liu)" <>
To: Rakesh Kumar <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: slides for CASM bof
Thread-Index: AdKjusm8V9ucI+R0SZOCYs+KjOBF+gAbHuIAAJTdd6A=
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 22:06:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C9B5F12337F6F841B35C404CF0554ACB8990F48FSZXEMA509MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0207.58D83B5A.00B8, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7f09d687d8f9ab954dce9490cf33640b
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Casm] slides for CASM bof
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Address Space Management <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 22:06:23 -0000

Hi Rakesh,

Besides comments for your slides, here are my comments to your email below. Please see below in-line with [Will]

Will (Shucheng LIU)

From: Rakesh Kumar []
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 12:46 AM
To: Liushucheng (Will Liu); Marc Blanchet; Ralph Droms; Fioccola Giuseppe; 'ian.farrer'; 'BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN'; Benoit Claise; Georgios Karagiannis; John Strassner;; 'Luis M. Contreras'; Jun Bi
Cc:; 解冲锋; 'chengying10';;; Xuweiping (David); Pengtao (Tony); Rakesh Kumar
Subject: Re: slides for CASM bof

Hi Will,

After looking at the attached slides and the one I created earlier (attached here for everyone’s reference). I see one difference and that may help us in converging our thought process. Please look at slide#7 from the attached deck. Here is my take on it:

1.      I look at “CASM” as means to solve a common problem of address management for multiple use-case (although not shown in the slide 7).
[Will]: In the latest slides of Use case, we’re trying to put them into these category. Please let us know your thought.
•   Address pools configuration on BNGs / IPv6 transition devices
– DHCP server pool
– Static address configuration
•   Address configuration API of IPAM
•   NAT & CGN
– Public IP address pool
•   SDN scenarios
•   Others

2.      I look at “CASM” users not from use-case perspective such as BNG but rather from the perspective of implementation aspects. The most common users from my perspective would be
[Will]: I understand your different way of dividing use cases now. However, in IETF, we usually put use cases in categories according to “use-case perspective”, right? So please see whether the above covered your thought.

a.      In a virtualized DC, SDN controller need to assign IP addresses to workloads and virtual networks
[Will]: I agree. Would you provide a more detailed use case to put into use case slides?

b.      In a legacy data center (built with physical elements) proprietary tools/script to assign IP addresses to servers and network and firewall elements
[Will]: Is your “legacy” in arch figure referring to legacy data center? If not, then It’s not clear to me whether it’s NBI or SBI. Would you provide a figure with workflow?

c.      OSS/BBS to initialize/allocate/divide address poos
[Will] : This is the NBI to OSS/BSS, however, the current OSS/BSS may not support this?

d.      Admin to allocate IP addresses if for some reason there is need to reserve addresses (may be, someone want to assign static address in an old fashion manner)
[Will]: Not sure whether this scenario is practical? Is there any requirement for this from Operators/Campas?

3.       Of course, we could draw/put another layer at top that shows BNG/3GPP/etc. But I did not put it intentionally since our CASM architecture does not stop any end use-case/market segment from using it.  After all, we all agree that this is the most common thing to solve wherever networks and a requirement for addressing scheme exist.

I hope, I am able to explain my thoughts behind the proposal and slide deck and the draft we had presented.
[Will] Yes. Much clearer. Only some clarifying question above.