Re: [homenet] appropriateness of draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-03 to homenet WG?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B76F12009E for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 lSsUOCDymFPI for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB46712009C for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id r5so9029794qtd.0 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=LhuICRy8YVSFC1vO6iuZ83FH6Bvm03P4UkVh6TGHPHk=; b=1/6NkUdHSJTcLPt0bwOV8LGKFwLFyCPS1GMBnJZ1BCF5doYPlli4cLxDWUc2F/8erg Qjxf4zc8iEps4hJl9oiuw8rmubF3LiJz991CEj2JinLun6Qlm+izD0FhtD9WqNEDZicx 2L5lTNeFjQORl3L9Ao2IG9uKp8xnnYLLo3//Rzl43ZxPRb1cfHt2IzRweuiY+d/y0vj3 cDBNx7n4IcdkI0VSuyqpV9DP9OeKmV/6zlEk10ZdGxEV9aMm7ir+DnzEBxpjpakFV+aF u3M3fgjt6BVLHRhbw1kqio169dUGu0Mx6gLIbzgnvWUfw70mlK3XZEkowu2k8YI+OsJN 7W0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=LhuICRy8YVSFC1vO6iuZ83FH6Bvm03P4UkVh6TGHPHk=; b=NSJ7B50K/4gulnAN+0MQgQ4hLt4B9Z/r+Y/O5XqqxtpjlB5wLrx+sH2pSkkadgtZNH bMxwHe0mywPiP9TGrCm846BFN+cjKenLYcNXvCzstbe8vXPkJBgdrODojWIClLe/Lv3Q KQCV7BwnKdqpaX+Xpg+7va6EsmfRNFAMXhi1Nb1bEOOpuYs0OwcnV08VXavVdKAhJO2a E3VoENs7Pc1g/LLyzuR6oWIkjQZ613T3IGagUUv1Yo5v4A4WLqmfRpNuphFGXaNRvAuP 6bBRfdJ6xxJbemNpxiN6ZPaJiHD0paODYHNWDLc5WdBoNshcjbnX2gF+BhoDkQdUU689 0v0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU7XsYi71T3+4OhpgIe17iswujypJ4RTWPeSj7ctynrnbWzttUR bQ4gT2OCghZHSc7jSF+Zv3Tkiw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwJMCDybDIbWsh5H3QzNUD63LWe+eeqGn5/ssygwZEqMbKjT1PL3L3ur5m30u1ocmHUR1BVyQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3564:: with SMTP id z33mr4283791qtb.291.1568815123795; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.46] (c-73-186-137-119.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.186.137.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g194sm2821260qke.46.2019.09.18.06.58.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <46A4FC66-83A3-4EC5-9958-EF0ACBE08E3B@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7260D4C0-EEF2-4B03-933C-123152E8D229"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3578.1\))
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:58:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <bf3d359c-e4d3-8579-5d40-0886e2b2b75a@gmail.com>
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro@shytyi.net>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <ac988227-162c-2af1-98a8-aecde8d1bb68@gmail.com> <449C0C62-C642-4FF6-97E6-27144BA3F760@fugue.com> <b6f0b4ad-af5e-ca65-1c5e-de4465959891@gmail.com> <1A546022-2A60-4523-8522-C19D013B2168@fugue.com> <bf3d359c-e4d3-8579-5d40-0886e2b2b75a@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3578.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/JDfiwH8nuldqx_XwbxsSKkNu6bA>
Subject: Re: [homenet] appropriateness of draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-03 to homenet WG?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:58:47 -0000

That diagram isn’t consistent with what Homenet has been trying to build: it appears to be a base assumption of this work that there is a single virtual CPE router, and that’s not a homenet problem.

> On Sep 18, 2019, at 4:14 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 17/09/2019 à 15:34, Ted Lemon a écrit :
>> On Sep 17, 2019, at 9:29 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>>
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the reply.  As I do not author the draft, and my
>>> colleague is not subscribed to this list, I paste here his reply to
>>> your question:
>>>> It is not really clear if the draft is appropriate to the homenet
>>>> wg. One can state that this draft presents a tool/solution
>>>> (service yang model) for orchestator to manage the different uCPE
>>>> equipment. uCPE eqipment is not regular cpe/homenet device. uCPE
>>>> is a host that hosts guest OSs. uCPE is like PC with virtualbox where the VMs are running (VMs such as homenet router,cisco
>>>> router, firewall, SD-WAN.)
>> Thanks.   The question I would ask here is, is it intended that this
>> uCPE integrate into a multi-subnet, multi-homed homenet?
> 
> Temporary speaking for my colleague, this is what he has to say to the question:
> 
>> If we are talking, for example, about several IPv6 prefixes that are
>> learned from muliple ISPs I could suggest that uCPE is transparent in
>> this case. On the figure below we can see that uCPE connects 2 PHY
>> ports via virtual Links to the Virtual Ports of VNF. So it is the
>> VNF(vRouter) that is doing the job. There is example where the
>> constructor of equipment merges the uCPE NFVIs with router (i find it
>> as a very particular case).
>> If we are talking about implementation of babel in the uCPE please
>> check the figure below. I suppose it is a vRouter that will have this
>> functionality (not uCPE NFVIs).
>> P.S. There is a management of NFVIs that maybe could be integrated.
>> But it is a question if there is an interest to do that.
> 
>           +--------------------------------+
>           |uCPE                            |
>           |                                |
>           |                 +--------+     |
>           |           |-----|vRouter |-----|----WAN1
> LAN1 ------|----|      |     +--------+     |
>           |    |      |          |         |
>           |    |      |          |         |
> LAN2 ------|----|------|          |---------|----WAN2
>           |    |                           |
>           |    |                           |
> LAN3 ------|----|                           |
>           |                                |
>           |                                |
>           +--------------------------------+