Re: [Ibnemo] How to group/reuse definitions

Inline

On 09/11/15 09:46, Zhoutianran wrote:
> It's really useful to group a set of atomic components and provide the whole as a micro/template, just like the DMZ example. The hierarchy enables the reusability.
> To describe a DMZ, I can see two ways.
> 1. One is to describe the exact connectivity among those atomic components. I think the switch and router are what we want to eliminate. It seems too detail with the intent concept. I hope they can be auto generated by the intent engine.
So, does this mean that a DMZ node will ALWAYS have the same set
of components, predefined by the NEMO engine?
If so, that seems to make the NEMO engine less complex.
But it puts limits on the flexibility for the user of the NEMO language, does it not?
> 2. The other way I would prefer is to define DMZ as a layer 2 group, in which by default all the components are connected by a logic switch(which do not need to explicitly describe again). Or we can define DMZ as a layer 3 group with a  router. In this way, we can put any number of components in easily with fully flexibility.

So how would the user define which and how many components get put in?
Or will it be a predefined set by the NEMO Engine?

Another question that comes up in my mind: Will this always be a logical/virtual network?
How/when is the translation made to a physical network, or is that not needed?

Maybe I am just showing a not-so-good-understanding of the NEMO concepts yet.
But then I would appreciate to be eductaed some more.

Bert
>
> That's my 2 cents.
>
> Best,
> Tianran
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ibnemo [mailto:ibnemo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bert Wijnen
>> (IETF)
>> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 5:41 PM
>> To: ibnemo@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Ibnemo] How to group/reuse definitions
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ibnemo mailing list
>> Ibnemo@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ibnemo