Re: [Ibnemo] some clarification questions about IBnemo

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

Tianran:

 

I agree that the static data model for configuration and operational status
is the base model from netmod. 

However, if one includes the dynamic interface being defined in the I2RS
model (pub/sub) then the yang modules could be considered  dynamic
supporting temporary configuration and publication/subscription.  

 

All of these are like machine code in the network.  The dynamic nature of
I2RS is a descriptive language instead of the prescriptive Intent-based
Nemo.   The current 100+ yang modules will have 10,000-20,000 model entities
defined. 

 

Nemo's level of dynamic nature is at the intent level which makes it more
powerful.  Like a lever, Nemo's intent-based DSL indicate the application
wants to move the network. An example of this is a "Big Data" application
that wants to control setting up three sites for data transfer in order to
do over-night processing for a company,

 

The 15 primitives of Nemo specify the establishment of a virtual network via
(node, link, action, policy)  With the model primitives, you can also create
a library of definitions that allow the Big Data Application to pre-set up
the names of the nodes or links or flows to be more human readable.  This
makes the http:: stream to be human readable which the Network operators
prefer. 

 

 

<model_definition_cmd> := <node_definition> | <link_definition> |
<action_definition> 

 

 

Sue 

 

From: Ibnemo [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhoutianran
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:53 AM
To: Georgios Karagiannis; Susan Hares
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ibnemo] some clarification questions about IBnemo

 

Hi Gergios,

 

A big difference I noticed is that:

YANG is used for describing static data model including data structure, and
operations.

IB-NEMO DSL can be used for programming, i.e. application can interact with
the network using NEMO DSL.

 

There are many other differences I think we need a gap analysis.

 

Best Regards,

 

Tianran Zhou (Ph.D.)

Senior Network Researcher

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

 

From: Ibnemo [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Georgios
Karagiannis
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 5:15 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ibnemo] some clarification questions about IBnemo

 

Hi Sue,

 

Thank you very much for the answers. Regarding the listed work items:

 

    c) Standardize Intent-Based Nemo DSL (domain-specific language) for
virtual networks. 

        IB-Nemo runs over a RESTful (http) interface. 

    d) Standardize Intent-Based Nemo DSL for Security devices  

    e) Standardize Intent-Based Nemo DSL for compute devices.   

 

 

 

What are the main differences between Intent-Based Nemo domain-specific
language and YANG?

By focusing on these three areas, the scope of the WG might be quite large.
If it is to focus only on one of these three work items, which one of them
will you choose?

 

Best regards,

Georgios

 

 

 

From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 4:15 AM
To: Georgios Karagiannis
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Ibnemo] some clarification questions about IBnemo

 

Gergios:

 

Thank you for these great questions. 

 

 

1) What is the motivation of starting this working group? 

The motivation for starting this group comes out three things:  a) desire to
maximum usage of Network devices, b) Intent-Based theory and c) an 80/20
rule of interfaces.  

 

Desire to maximum network devices: 

Today's networks connect data centers to mobile users.  The Data Centers
operate to maximize the use of server's compute cycle, storage devices, and
networks.  A research study (2011-2012) examined how to maximize usage of
compute, storage, and networks using theoretical models.  This study showed
that if you optimize for any one facet (compute, storage, network) you
obtain 66% utilization of all facets.  However, if the applications can
communicate and negotiate their intent for compute, storage, or network -
the theoretical utilization can reach 95% or higher.  

 

The potential higher utilization combined with the lowering of costs due to
with the virtualization of network devices creates an economic environment
that radically changes the cost dynamics of IT technology.  

 

Intent-Based Networks

The signaling of the network changes via applications that direct SDN-based
networks via descriptive commands requires a large data flow between
applications and networks.   The application does not really want or need
the full description of the networks.   For example, a database application
simply needs to signal that it needs to connect to two other database
locations and exchange data with some maximum flow rate. 

 

Intent-based network signal this minimum required information, and let the
network set-up the rest. 

 

80/20 rules of applications

Some SDN orchestrators are "god-boxes" that need to know and direct
everything.  However, most applications really need only to signal intent.
The network engineers designing SDN orchestrators are 20% or less of the
total applications.   The other 80% of applications use the 20% of total
commands that request the high-level requests.   Intent based Domain
Specific languages (E.g. focused on network) allow simple commands to be
exchanged between the application and the SDN controller across a RESTful
interface (http protocol).  

 

This simpler interface for applications can enable a large class of new
applications to utilize the SDN controller. 

 

2) Are there use cases defined that are motivating this work?

 

The use case motivating this work:  

 

a) Simple interfaces for a new class of monitoring and manage applications
for the new NFV controllers controlling Carrier access networks or Cable
networks, 

 

b) Simple interfaces for the network-based application store that can load
query or load things on mobile networks, 

 

c) Large Database applications desiring to signal the network to set-up a
Virtual network to link database sites.  The set-up/tear down of this
network is controlled by the Application. 

 

d) Security devices seeking a short-term set-up of application layer
connection to exchange data. 

 

3) What are the work items?  

     a) Problem statement and use cases document 

    b) Intent Framework Description for Networks, Security, Storage, Compute


 

    c) Standardize Intent-Based Nemo DSL (domain-specific language) for
virtual networks. 

        IB-Nemo runs over a RESTful (http) interface. 

    d) Standardize Intent-Based Nemo DSL for Security devices  

    e) Standardize Intent-Based Nemo DSL for compute devices.   

 

4) Is the main goal of the WG to standardize a new protocol, or to extend an
existing one?

 

The main goal is to standardize a series of Domain-Specific languages which
run over RESTful interface (http). 

 

5)  What is the relation of IBnemo with existing IETF WGs?

 

                                       NBI        SDN    SBI   

IB-Nemo (application) ---- controller --- I2rs, netconf/netmod, 

                                                                       SACM

 

NBI - north bound interface

SBI - south bound interface 

 

Application protocols work such as  CoApp (CORE) produce http constrained to
small environment as a specialized application protocol.  However, these
protocols are not focused on enabling an Intent-Based application protocols
that will utilize NFV architectures.  

 

Before I launch into more details, please let me know if you have questions.


 

Sue Hares 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ibnemo [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Georgios
Karagiannis
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 4:32 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [Ibnemo] some clarification questions about IBnemo

 

Hi Sue, Hi all,

 

In a previous email it is mentioned that:

 

"The Nemo-project group seeks to create a simple Intent-Based inter-operable
application protocol that forms a simple NorthBound API (NB) for
applications on any platform to control the following : a) setup and take
down of virtual networks between virtual nodes, b) control transfer of data
toward storage, and c) handle compute devices with a the minimal set of
intent-based primitives."

 

Can you please provide some clarifications on the following points?

 

o) What is the motivation of starting this working group? Are there use
cases defined that are motivating this work?

 

o) What are the work items? Is the main goal of the WG to standardize a new
protocol, or to extend an existing one?

 

o)  What is the relation of IBnemo with existing IETF WGs?

 

Best regards,

Georgios

 

_______________________________________________

Ibnemo mailing list

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

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo