[Ibnemo] How to group/reuse definitions

"Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bwietf@bwijnen.net> Thu, 05 November 2015 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bwietf@bwijnen.net>
X-Original-To: ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243481A9062 for <ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 01:41:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 jc6-rIpl_um6 for <ibnemo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 01:41:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net (lb2-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net [194.109.24.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AD691A874F for <ibnemo@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 01:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-28-192.meeting.ietf94.jp ([133.93.28.192]) by smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net with ESMTP id dlhV1r00K48hhDh01lhZYj; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 10:41:34 +0100
To: "ibnemo@ietf.org" <ibnemo@ietf.org>
From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bwietf@bwijnen.net>
Message-ID: <563B2449.6040802@bwijnen.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:41:29 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ibnemo/gxIjHEju8xa2M19gFg2GUbjRHaw>
Subject: [Ibnemo] How to group/reuse definitions
X-BeenThere: ibnemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of Nemo, an intent-based North Bound \(NB\) interface consisting of an application protocol running over HTTP \(RESTful interfaces\) to exchange intent-based primitives between applications and meta-controllers controlling virtual network resources \(networks, storage, CPU\)." <ibnemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ibnemo>, <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ibnemo/>
List-Help: <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo>, <mailto:ibnemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 09:41:39 -0000

During the IETF94 Hackaton, we got some discussion on how much
detail we want to allow or need in the Intent Language when
reusing definitions. For example, let us assume that you

- define a router
- define a firewall
- define a loadbalancer
- define a l2 switch
- etc

And that later on you want to define something like a DMZ and
inside that DMZ you want to use the defined router, firewall, l2 switch, etc.

The end-user/customer would want to just express his/her intent to have
an internet connection with a DMZ I guess.

The network administrator of the ISP (operator) needs to then express that the
DMZ consists of let us say a router, a firewall, a l2switch etc.
Do we want/need the network administrator to have to (or to be able to) specify
the details on how these nodes get connected? Or would we rather see that the
Intent Engine generates the proper connections?

I suggest that those who have proto-type implementations express their approach
and that network operators express their wants/needs for such a scenario.

Bert