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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 15 February 2017 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 4F2DC127071 for <casm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:15:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 OmwPoRFzJ2ts for <casm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:15:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443E41294A1 for <CASM@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:15:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14795; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487164541; x=1488374141; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=ErBwF97CEPGfOm7Abirt/HISPh14UQNUIktCUEd35GE=; b=PzXEuQdqJUE2t2ttQUdjumzqjJ6w6V4Pf0dKDmYPt25KFAJNinjtVqcf TW2qCY9jqY2zq8Wm7zvf6XvVccBaq0ns4gZ5pEUw7cF/n0vNu1+RlyrCw CGwtiuNP8Yg8sbPB5uIucfaI8iD/8JGtUDw8W9UxXkjkdKEfbQuZLODGo 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BrAwBDU6RY/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm+BRAMnX45TkH8fkAqDHYIPggwqgh0BgxBKAoJMFwECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWIohHABAQEEVDULDgMEAQEvTwgGAQwGAgEBiWcOsXkrizcBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYZNggUIgmKENwEBBYV7BYkNkmqGb4slij+GR4sRiAYhATU?= =?us-ascii?q?8GSsgFAgVFYcBPzUBh1mCLQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,166,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="649659874"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Feb 2017 13:15:38 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1FDFcow012482; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:15:38 GMT
To: Rakesh Kumar <rkkumar@juniper.net>, "CASM@ietf.org" <CASM@ietf.org>
References: <82fe1b7a-995b-9fdf-ec28-424ca1cef884@cisco.com> <BN6PR05MB2993F5AE262003182BE55D14AD5B0@BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <a54ecdde-2af7-5285-9e77-3c00e85edb1c@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:15:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR05MB2993F5AE262003182BE55D14AD5B0@BN6PR05MB2993.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------25412648D791C0809CE2AB4D"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/casm/ya5kSQLhRn-Fs8uSy9ub2fvaXII>
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 13:15:44 -0000

Hi Rakesh,
>
> 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.
>
Fine, but it's still vague to me. Can you point me those in your figure?

         +----------------+ +------+ +----+ +-----+ +-----------------------+
         |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 |   |        |
         +--------+    +-----+  +----------+   +--------+

In my mind, an interface is a set of API between two end points.

Regards, Benoit
>
>
> 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