Re: [Ibnemo] [Nfvrg] 答复: Defining a Common Model for intent

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Tianran/Terence: 

 

This looks great – go and work through an example. 

 

Sue 

 

From: Ibnemo [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhoutianran
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 5:35 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ibnemo] [Nfvrg] 答复: Defining a Common Model for intent

 

 

Hi Sue,

 

I agree your concept that “roles are constraints on the intent”.

Can we use the following figure to show the orthogonal?

1.  We organize intent with role groups.

2.  For each role, the intent can cover many layers functions.

 

And in this way, we do not have to constrain role’s intent into a specific layer. That would be more flexible and easy to express one’s intent.

role.png

 

 

Best,

Terence

 

From: Nfvrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 3:04 AM
To: 'PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ'; zhangyali (D); [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] 答复: [Ibnemo] Defining a Common Model for intent

 

Pedro: 

 

Interesting!  You consider level within the company a role (top managers vs. NOC) and the infrastructure-based  - a different orthogonal.   I think this still fits within my concept that we are describing roles as groups of constraints on intent.   Do you think role and infrastructure-based roles/constraints – are orthogonal constraints on intent? 

 

Sue  

 

From: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:50 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'zhangyali (D)'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] 答复: [Ibnemo] Defining a Common Model for intent

 

Hi Sue,

 

Let me refine a bit:

 

Example 1:

AS1 provider for AS2: normally means that AS1 sets a set of policies that filter out any prefixes that don’t come from AS2 or its clients, while AS2 receives all advertisements from AS1. There is no implied symmetry there and how these policies are then implemented depends on the equipment AS1 and AS2 have. 

 

Example 2:

Load balancing: in the context of AS1 being a provider for AS2 means that As1 will indicate AS2 how to mark advertisements to accomplish load balancing.

 

So for role based intent these are two different ‘layers’ in a company (top manager versus NOC responsible)

However, if we try to layer the infrastructure we are in the same ‘inter domain’ layer (as opposed to an ‘intra domain’ layer)

This is why I see the ‘role-based’ intent being orthogonal to an ‘infrastructure-based’ intent. I believe that we need to take these (hopefully only) two dimensions into account.

 

Best, /PA

 

 

De: Sue Hares <[e-mail]>
Fecha: jueves, 4 de junio de 2015 04:11
Para: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ <[e-mail]>, "'zhangyali (D)'" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Asunto: RE: [Nfvrg] 答复: [Ibnemo] Defining a Common Model for intent

 

Pedro:

 

I agree with your BGP examples.  It too is my favorite topic.  

 

Example 1 : AS1 as provider for AS2 – 

This service provider’s (user’s) intent with the context of BGP infrastructure.

Is it AS1 intent or AS2 intent or symmetric intent?  I think symmetric. 

 

This is like a link in a node AS1--- AS-Link -- AS2 

 

Example 2: AS1 as a provider intents to load balance traffic to AS 2: 

                  This is AS1’s intent. 

                  This intent is like our original model:  AS1-link-AS2 with Dataflow balanced. 

                

                                Intent = connection at flow distribution

                                Context: BGP infrastructure 

 

Do you think I understand your examples? 

 

Sue 

                

 

 

 

From: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 2:13 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'zhangyali (D)'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] 答复: [Ibnemo] Defining a Common Model for intent

 

Hi,

 

So, let’s keep in one layer first. And since you mention my pet-topic (BGP), let’s stay there :-)

 

Ex.1  

There is a lot of work on the relations between autonomous systems (provider, client, sibling, etc.) 

So intent for me is the assertion "AS1 is a provider for AS2”; the implementation would use advertisements, route-maps etc. and that is not intent

 

Ex.2 

AS1 is connected to AS2, he has several links and wants to implement load-balancing between them. “Load balancing" is the intent and advertisements, route-maps etc. is the implementation and that’s not intent.

 

>From an infrastructure point of view, we have two instances of intent at the same “layer”. However role-wise, the decision of entering a client-provider relationship between ASes is taken in the ‘management floor’ and the decision of load-balancing in taken in the Network Operation Centre. This is the reason for my double take at intent

 

Regarding whether intent @ layer N + context @ layer N —> something @ layer N-1 and from my example above depends how or whether we structure the role dimension into layers. 

 

The policy continuum paper would somehow suggest that this mapping between layers somehow happens in the infrastructure dimension

 

My .2 cents,

/PA

 

 

De: Sue Hares <[e-mail]>
Fecha: miércoles, 3 de junio de 2015 00:48
Para: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ <[e-mail]>, "'zhangyali (D)'" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Asunto: RE: [Nfvrg] 答复: [Ibnemo] Defining a Common Model for intent

 

Pedro and Yali: 

 

It helps to keep in the networking domain where I am familiar with work!  I agree that intent goes through the layers, but I still struggle to make the connections. 

 

I know that instances of code (BGP) on devices create zones  of connectivity (sub-domains/subnets, AS, Groups of AS), but I think there must be  more in the intent discuss.  Yinben and Yali’s comments that 

User à intent à context 

 

is still the key information.    Is it Intent + context (layer n) to ? at layer n-1.  

 

Sue 

 

PS - Perhaps I am tainted by the ISO model that suggests lower layers provide services for lower layers. 

 

From: Nfvrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 2:38 AM
To: zhangyali (D); Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] 答复: [Ibnemo] Defining a Common Model for intent

 

Hi Yali,

 

let’s keep in the networking domain :-) I strongly believe that we need different levels or layers of intent. However, there are (at least) two different viewpoints:

 

If you follow the infrastructure view(which is where I feel more comfortable), I hope we agree that it is a completely different situation when you are designing a network element-by-element than when you are designing the network at a sub-domain level (for example levels in an IS-IS based network or areas if you use OSPF) or if you are defining the interconnections of a service provider’s AS (and dealing with BGP-4 policies) or if you are defining an end-to-end service. Although at the end, the upper layers will use all the features provided by the lower layers.

 

Now, I’m sure we can find the equivalent layering from a role point of view:

 

The user wants to access a service (for example a Web page), the provider of that Web page wants it to be served with the best quality of experience and so he chooses a specific provider – normally a CDN). The CDN provider will choose a given carrier to get access to the user’s service provider. The user’s service provider will dimension his network to fulfill a series of criteria. Within the service provider, the operators sitting at the Network Operations Centre will have to fulfill a series of KPIs, etc. 

 

As you see, I’m more a ‘box’ thinker. However, if someone can complete the ‘role’ example we can compare both approaches and try to identify if we can do any mapping between the two views. Maybe we could come up at end with a set of common denominators we can use to continue this discussion.

 

Best,

/PA

 

 

De: "zhangyali (D)" <[e-mail]>
Fecha: martes, 2 de junio de 2015 05:52
Para: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ <[e-mail]>, Sue Hares <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Asunto: 答复: [Ibnemo] Defining a Common Model for intent
Nuevo envío de: <[e-mail]>
Nuevo envío para: <[e-mail]>
Fecha de nuevo envío: martes, 2 de junio de 2015 05:52

 

Hi Pedro,

 

Thanks for reviewing the draft and giving modification.

 

The question you have mentioned is a very important point for the abstraction of intent model. Maybe we can propose the transport market as a analogy.

1.       A customer wants to transport his goods from A to B. So his intent is getting his goods from A to B without carrying about how to do it. Then his intent is transferred to the transportation system. 

2.       This system analyzes customer’s requirement, and choose a suitable way to complete the requirement. For example, the system choose truck as the means. So the intent of transportation system is transferring the goods with truck.

3.       The driver of this truck analyze the path from A to B, and choose a most appropriate path to complete this order which will save more time. So  the intent of driver may be transferring the goods with the least time. Then the driver will start the engine, step on the gas, etc.

 

>From this analogy, the ultimate effect is the same, namely, transfer the goods from A to B. But the specific intent of different roles has some differences which depends on user’ role, knowledge, responsibility, etc. For example, transportation system is responsible for transporting goods, and he know the various ways. So he can form his intent by rendering the upper customer’s intent.

 

Supposing we divide users into different layers according to the implementation series, users in upper layer expresses his intent as what he want without having the knowledge about how to do it. Then the how procedure will be transferred to what in the lower layer according to knowledge and context. These transfer procedure lead to the completion of requirement. Same with the example in draft. Although the ultimate effect is same, the focus is different which will bring out the differentiation of intent.

 

This is just my immature opinion about intent. Do you think the differentiation of intent to complete the same thing is important and reasonable?

 

Best Regards,

 

Yali

 

发件人: PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2015年6月1日 17:15
收件人: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: Re: [Ibnemo] Defining a Common Model for intent

 

Hi,

 

A small clarification proposal for draft  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xia-ibnemo-icim/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xia-ibnemo-icim/ .

 

In section 2.4, I would leave the following as a paragraph

For example, in the network area the intent of end-users could be
safe connectivity between two sites which a technology independent
and device independent requirement. For business-based network
designers, the network connectivity can be selected which is device-
independent but technology specific. An example of the business-based
technology is the L3VPN. 
And change:
For network administrators, intent can be
specific operations on a set of devices such as configuring IP
addresses on network servers in a data center.

To

 

For network administrators, intent can be <new>defining a network topology like a router connected to a firewall, connected to a load balancer and this to two L2 networks where WWW servers sit or specifying the</new> operations on a set of devices such as configuring IP addresses on network servers in a data center.
 
Rationale behind this is again, that intent should be anything that is invariant and that expresses what a network operator/administrator may need to do, as opposed to how he would do that, i.e. The router is a HW device from vendor X or a virtual machine running a specific routing daemon over a given data-path implementation.
Best, /PA

---

Dr. Pedro A. Aranda Gutiérrez

 

Technology Exploration -

Network Innovation & Virtualisation

email: pedroa d0t aranda At telefonica d0t com

Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

C/ D. Ramón de la Cruz,84

28006 Madrid, Spain

 

Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden.

Fragen sind da, um gestellt zu werden.

Georg Kreisler

 


  _____  



Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

 

 

 

---

Dr. Pedro A. Aranda Gutiérrez

 

Technology Exploration -

Network Innovation & Virtualisation

email: pedroa d0t aranda At telefonica d0t com

Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

C/ D. Ramón de la Cruz,84

28006 Madrid, Spain

 

Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden.

Fragen sind da, um gestellt zu werden.

Georg Kreisler

 


  _____  



Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

 

 

 

---

Dr. Pedro A. Aranda Gutiérrez

 

Technology Exploration -

Network Innovation & Virtualisation

email: pedroa d0t aranda At telefonica d0t com

Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

C/ D. Ramón de la Cruz,84

28006 Madrid, Spain

 

Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden.

Fragen sind da, um gestellt zu werden.

Georg Kreisler

 


  _____  



Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

 

 

 

---

Dr. Pedro A. Aranda Gutiérrez

 

Technology Exploration -

Network Innovation & Virtualisation

email: pedroa d0t aranda At telefonica d0t com

Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

C/ D. Ramón de la Cruz,84

28006 Madrid, Spain

 

Fragen sind nicht da, um beantwortet zu werden.

Fragen sind da, um gestellt zu werden.

Georg Kreisler

 

  _____  


Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição