Re: [Ibnemo] Policies and Intent-Based Networking

[Laurent Ciavaglia <[e-mail]>]

Sue,
Quickly, I can point you to two references (pdf files):
     -Technical report D24, sections 3.3 and 4.1. 
(http://tinyurl.com/mr6rhgn)
     -Use case on Network and Service Governance 
(http://tinyurl.com/pqmvu8r)
For more papers on the topic, I will have to check with the main 
authors, please let me know...

Best regards, Laurent.


On 06/10/2015 20:26, Susan Hares wrote:
>
> Laurent:
>
> Thank you for letting me know the use case of a network administrator 
> is valid.  Could you send me a direct pointer to the policy continuum 
> paper.  I am having trouble finding it on the site.  The research at 
> www.univerself-project.eu <http://www.univerself-project.eu> is very 
> interesting, but I just cannot find the specific paper you mention.
>
> Sue Hares
>
> *From:*Laurent Ciavaglia [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:43 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares; 'PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ'; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Ibnemo] Policies and Intent-Based Networking
>
> Dear Sue, all,
>
> Please see inline...
>
> On 05/10/2015 20:57, Susan Hares wrote:
>
>     Laurent:
>
>     I agree that the important part of this discussion is:
>
>     a)At which level of abstraction we start (end-user level, 
>     administrator for network),
>
>     b)At which level the “end-systems) operate – “user end-systems” or
>     “routers that provide entry to network”,
>
>     c)What mechanisms exist to translate from a) starting abstraction
>     to b) ending abstraction.
>
>     In earlier discussions, we simply looked at the end user as (a)
>     and the router in a large network as (b).    Do you think this is
>     the right place to start?
>
> It is surely good enough to start with network operator/administrator 
> and routers in a large network as policy "end points".
> My initial comment was more to stress the levels of _abstraction_ 
> considered: if the policy entry point is quite abstract (cf previous 
> policy example) and the policy exit point understands "only" low level 
> commands, then the mechanism(s) in between will have to cope with such 
> "distance" between the policy end points, ensuring the continuum of 
> the policy from the top to the bottom levels.
> The main challenge is thus to identify in the defined policy what are 
> the informational elements (here the modeling is key), these elements 
> shall then be interpreted (semantics/ontology come to mind), and 
> finally translated in a format understandable by the next element in 
> the policy chain.
> We have defined such mechanisms for policy continuum in a recent 
> research project (www.univerself-project.eu 
> <http://www.univerself-project.eu>), applied to autonomic networking.
>
> Best regards, Laurent.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for the insight,
>
> Sue
>
> *From:*Ibnemo [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Laurent 
> Ciavaglia
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2015 11:36 AM
> *To:* PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ; Susan Hares; [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ibnemo] Policies and Intent-Based Networking
>
> Hello,
>
> My naive opinion on the topic would be as follows:
>     -Can all policies be expressed as an Intent?
>      Yes, in the sense that Intent is the "mother" of all policies; 
> this is what the user initially wants the system to achieve.
>
>     -Should all policies be expressed as Intent?
>      Not necessarily. Systems limitations and complexity make it more 
> simple/direct to write a low-level policy/command (i.e. what the 
> majority of policy-based systems does).
>
> A key, hidden point is the policy continuum:
>     1)-at which level of abstraction the policy starts,
>     2)-which level of abstraction the end systems (those receiving the 
> policy) "understand" (the level of support may be non-uniform),
>     3)-what mechanisms exist to translate from 1) to 2), taking into 
> account possible intermediate levels/layers (e.g. user or service 
> level, network level, function level, protocol level, resource level..)
>
> Wrt. Sue's example, I would see an intent-policy defined as: "Steer 
> customer traffic to relevant customer gateway, and all other traffic 
> to default (Internet) gateway." (i.e. the "system" will have to figure 
> out how to understand and translate different customers, what are the 
> right gateways, etc.)
>
> HTH, best regards, Laurent.
>
>
> On 05/10/2015 16:49, PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ wrote:
>
>     Hi Sue,
>
>     Thanks for clarifying… this is a good food for thought. Answers
>     inline…
>
>     /PA
>
>     *De: *Sue Hares
>     *Fecha: *lunes, 5 de octubre de 2015, 14:49
>     *Para: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>     *CC: *'Zhoutianran', "'Bert Wijnen (IETF)'", paag
>     *Asunto: *Policies and Intent-Based Networking
>
>         Hi all:
>
>         Can all policies be expressed an Intent?
>
>     OK, then we end up with something we didn’t quite like/agree upon
>     in Prague: there are different players with different interests
>     and background. Therefore, there will be different intents (scoped
>     by the actor’s view of the world) and maybe different ways of
>     expressing intent, depending on the user’s background.
>
>         I’m trying to determine what policies can or cannot be
>         expressed. Any example would be helpful.
>
>         Here’s three policies I’d like to discuss:
>
>         1)Traffic flow policies
>
>         2)BGP policies for route flow
>
>         3)Policy filters controlling routes,
>
>         I’m working on the I2RS extensions for Filter-Based RIB and
>         BGP (normal and flow filters).    The I2RS Filter-based RIB
>         allow for policies for routing (forwarding a layer 3) to be
>         associated with a set of interfaces.  For example,
>
>         Forwarding filter 1:  128.2/16 nexthop 128.2.1.1
>
>         Forwarding filters 2:   128.5.1/24 nexthop 128.2.1.2
>
>         And the rest get forwarded to the default RIB which
>
>                           128/8 nexthop 128.2.1.3
>
>         The intent  is that customer 1 has 128.2/16, and customer 2
>         has 128.5.1/24.   This node links to these VPNs via 128.2.1.1
>         (customer1), and 128.2.1.2 (customer 3). All other traffic
>         goes to the Internet.
>
>         How do I link this to the normal example of Intent?   Can we
>         render intent down to this level or should I be using a higher
>         level?
>
>     Let me try a hands-on in NEMO ;-)
>
>     So we have two LinkModels:
>
>     LinkModel VPN Property IPPrefix:nextHop, IPPrefix:destinationPrefix;
>
>     LinkModel Internet Property IPPrefix:nextHop;
>
>     And three Links
>
>     Link VPN1 Type VPN Property
>     nextHop:”128.2.1.1/32”, destinationPrefix:”128.2/16” ;
>
>     Link VPN2 Type VPN Property
>     nextHop:”128.2.1.2/32”, destinationPrefix:”128.5.1/24” ;
>
>     Link Default Type Internet Property nextHop:”128.2.1.3/32” ;
>
>     Then we would need 2 NodeModels:
>
>     NodeModel VPNTermination Property IPPrefix:ID, list(IPPrefix):
>     subnets ;
>
>     NodeModel InternetNode Property IPPrefix:ID;
>
>     And then the nodes:
>
>     Node VPNTermination1 Type VPNTermination Property
>     ID:”128.2.1.1/32”, subnets:”128.2/16” ;
>
>     Node VPNTermination2 Type VPNTermination Property
>     ID:”128.2.1.2/32”, subnets:”128.5.1/24” ;
>
>     Node InternetAccess Type InternetNode Property ID:”128.2.1.3/32” ;
>
>     And finally the connections between the nodes:
>
>     Link VPN1 Type VPN EndNodes thisNode,VPNTermination1 ;
>
>     Link VPN2 Type VPN EndNodes thisNode,VPNTermination2 ;
>
>     Link Default Type Internet EndNodes thisNode,InternetAccess ;
>
>     So
>
>     Conclusion no. 1: Yes we can…
>
>     Conclusion no.2: Maybe a bit redundant, right? But this can also
>     be positive, because it would allow for a lot of consistency
>     checking …
>
>     Dunno what others think…
>
>     My .02 cents,
>
>     ---
>
>     Dr. Pedro A. Aranda Gutiérrez
>
>     Technology Exploration -
>
>     Network Innovation & Virtualisation
>
>     email: pedroa d0t aranda At telefonica d0t com
>
>     Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
>
>     C/ Zurbarán,12
>
>     28010 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
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Ibnemo mailing list
>
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo
>
> -- 
>
>
> Bien cordialement, Best regards,
>
> *Laurent Ciavaglia*
>
> Secure Cloud Networking
>
> Bell Labs | Alcatel Lucent
>
> phone: [phone]
>
> email: [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> linkedin: laurentciavaglia <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/laurentciavaglia/>
>
> address: Route de Villejust | 91620 Nozay | France
>
> -- 
>
> Bien cordialement, Best regards,
>
> *Laurent Ciavaglia*
>
> Secure Cloud Networking
>
> Bell Labs | Alcatel Lucent
>
> phone: [phone]
>
> email: [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> linkedin: laurentciavaglia <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/laurentciavaglia/>
>
> address: Route de Villejust | 91620 Nozay | France
>

-- 

Bien cordialement, Best regards,

*Laurent Ciavaglia*

Secure Cloud Networking

Bell Labs | Alcatel Lucent

phone: [phone]

email: [e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]>

linkedin: laurentciavaglia <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/laurentciavaglia/>

address: Route de Villejust | 91620 Nozay | France