IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rakesh Kumar <rkkumar@juniper.net> Wed, 15 February 2017 08:03 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 0E3961294CD for <casm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:03:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Ohhk4IXi8kVB for <casm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:03:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0116.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA472128B37 for <CASM@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:03:47 -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=Q8EERx5l0ieX53LTawRmkLfaS4F0tIMryVttqQIwpN4=; b=bTfKert+gRVErLKgmt4NDesfuq/QJFcGqQqI8K+bPkT9wM0yLeby5A10AxduIWnwo04yKL8974Ec7ByFyIDy6V3swInQKUcYftNFRjbkcBUvjI36wPGTLwEHqvDiaa5hg4FjLAVcq8gb9gbzTgY895tPveiDRhQTNWXtx+9rdgo=
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 15.1.919.10; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:03:46 +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 15.01.0919.011; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:03:46 +0000
From: Rakesh Kumar <rkkumar@juniper.net>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "CASM@ietf.org" <CASM@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Casm] Which interfaces does CASM plan on standardizing?
Thread-Index: AQHShuf6erABXihd+0qNThK+aMaD26FptJqR
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:03:46 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR05MB2993F5AE262003182BE55D14AD5B0@BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <82fe1b7a-995b-9fdf-ec28-424ca1cef884@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <82fe1b7a-995b-9fdf-ec28-424ca1cef884@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rkkumar@juniper.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.15]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 910a6ac7-ad3d-4825-c8f7-08d455792b2e
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: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
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR05MB2996280F5732920C57D0550AAD5B0@BN6PR05MB2996.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123558025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:BN6PR05MB2996; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR05MB2996;
x-forefront-prvs: 021975AE46
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7916002)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39850400002)(39410400002)(39450400003)(189002)(51914003)(377454003)(199003)(102836003)(6116002)(3846002)(97736004)(77096006)(6506006)(2501003)(86362001)(7906003)(7736002)(229853002)(33656002)(68736007)(389900002)(74316002)(53936002)(3660700001)(19627405001)(2906002)(8676002)(81156014)(3280700002)(81166006)(8936002)(55016002)(189998001)(53546003)(6246003)(105586002)(106116001)(2950100002)(106356001)(38730400002)(122556002)(606005)(7696004)(54896002)(6606003)(50986999)(76176999)(101416001)(54356999)(25786008)(66066001)(6436002)(236005)(6306002)(99286003)(2900100001)(5660300001)(92566002)(9686003); 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN6PR05MB2993F5AE262003182BE55D14AD5B0BN6PR05MB2993namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Feb 2017 08:03:46.8951 (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/iQWfTw6ywssN39OHHGsZm-OT7qs>
Subject: Re: [Casm] Which interfaces does CASM plan on standardizing?
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, 15 Feb 2017 08:03:50 -0000

Hi,


Thanks for the review. We want to standardize three interfaces as defined in the section 5 of draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-requirements-and-framework-00.


Pool/address management interface, Log interface and integration interfaces with other naming services.


Thanks

Rakesh

________________________________
From: CASM <casm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:29 AM
To: CASM@ietf.org
Subject: [Casm] Which interfaces does CASM plan on standardizing?

Dear all,

Joel, Warren, and I have been discussing CASM.

Reading the two drafts, and we're wondering...

   draft-kumar-casm-problem-and-use-cases-00: This document describes evolution of IPAM into a
   standardized interfaces for centralized management of IP addresses.

   draft-kumar-casm-requirements-and-framework-00: There is a pressing need to define a new address management system
   which can meet these diverse set of requirements.  Such a system must
   be built with well defined interfaces so users can easily migrate
   from one vendor to another without rewriting their network management
   systems.


We see static address, public IP address pool, multicast IP address pool, pool initializing or resizing, etc.
We see DHCP server, DNS server, NAT service. And I guess there are controllers up there somewhere.
So which interfaces does CASM plan on standardizing?

        +----------------+ +------+ +----+ +-----+ +-----------------------+
        |Interface for   | |SDN/  | |OSS/| |ADMIN| |Interface for logs,    |
        |managing address| |Legacy| |BSS | |     | |DHCP, DNS, NAT, Address|
        |space and pools | |      | |    | |     | |allocation records     |
        +--------+-------+ +--+---+ +-+--+ +--+--+ +----------+------------+
                 |            |       |       |               ^
                 |            |       |       |               |
                 |            |       |       |               |
                 |            |       |       |               |
                 v            v       v       v               |
        +---+------------+-------+-------+---------------+------+
        |    Address Space Management (IPAM) System             |
        |      +-----------+ +----------+ +--------+            |
        |      | Pool      | |Address   | |Database|            |
        |      | Management| |Management| |        |            |
        |      +-----------+ +----------+ +--------+            |
        |                                                       |
        +-------------------------+-----------------------------+
                    |
        +-----------v------------+
        |Address Helper Plug|ins |
        +----+--+------+-----+---+
          |  |         |     |--------------------+
          |  +----+    |                          |
          |       |     ------------+             |
          v       +----|            |             |
        +--------+    +-----+  +----------+   +--------+
        | DNS    |    |NAT  |  |  Address |   | DHCP   |
        | Servers|    |     |  |  Mapping |   | Servers|
        |        |    |     |  |  Systems |   |        |
        +--------+    +-----+  +----------+   +--------+



All of them in this figure? A subset of those interfaces?
This group should be clear what it plans on working on.
And which IPAM vendors are involved in CASM, for a definition of IPAM related to this figure?

Note: similar comments as last time btw. See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04613.html

Regards, Benoit

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email