Re: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> Wed, 24 October 2012 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mbehring@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708AF21F8905 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7rpCNuBGLDuO for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B27521F8902 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5705; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1351081735; x=1352291335; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Q/fb/Qpmzv36aEu5GCuYcdEW5MhnLPG8VHcie7MoFAs=; b=ae0MI3e6+fXCazXf3yiuuZVF920IVnz2HWQtG2okmpni1FUq8fMCoqhw rmBQkAtntN3SSTATrHXiXFXltqsyNF2bj5vaCEPIBKfqDGFzZbRFw5PLV uy1keH10rvDOR1CbTzl4Nf9NBHA0g2cPFuT9f+aL9quljUPBefB5+5O8w g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAPrdh1CtJXG//2dsb2JhbABEwXyBCIIeAQEBBAEBAQ8BJzQGBQwEAgEIEQECAQEBAQoUCQchBgsUAwYIAgQBDQUIGodQAw8LmxiWKQ2JVIp5Z4YLYAOSBzqBXYJsihKDJYFrgm+CGA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,639,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="134880847"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2012 12:28:55 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9OCSs86003930 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:28:54 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.51]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:28:54 -0500
From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
To: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>, "surfer@mauigateway.com" <surfer@mauigateway.com>
Thread-Topic: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework
Thread-Index: AQHNsX+TV4oVMY/sT2OMTS35Feqv0JfIn+QA///CuUA=
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:28:53 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF0F5726EB@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <20121023173616.7A0A3BDC@m0005296.ppops.net> <82A29460-1205-4403-A49E-AE84020629B1@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <82A29460-1205-4403-A49E-AE84020629B1@g11.org.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.55.194.20]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19302.000
x-tm-as-result: No--47.313700-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ncrg@irtf.org" <ncrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework
X-BeenThere: ncrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Complexity Research Group <ncrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/ncrg>, <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/ncrg>
List-Post: <mailto:ncrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg>, <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:28:56 -0000

Ken: The department of computer science in the university of Cambridge would likely see themselves as stub and the university as transit. Conversely, a large tier-1 SP might consider JANET a stub network.

But again, one step back, what does this classification add to the draft? 

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ncrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:ncrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
> ken carlberg
> Sent: 24 October 2012 13:06
> To: surfer@mauigateway.com
> Cc: ncrg@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework
> 
> one could use the broader term, transit and stub networks.
> Government/DoD networks can be viewed in this form, though Wikipedia
> (which is not the definitive answer on all things :-) would say that transit
> networks like DISN is an "enterprise" network.  I'm also more used tot he
> term "stub" network instead of enterprise, but its really a function of the
> terms we're first exposed to.
> 
> I would also view most universities like UCL and Cambridge as "enterprise"
> or "stub" networks, and JANET as the transit network connecting them to
> the rest of the Internet.
> 
> -ken
> 
> 
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 8:36 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> 
> >
> > ::  As I have experienced, today networks can be classified
> > :: into Telecom & Enterprise ones.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that.  In this situation if it's not a telcom
> > network it must be an enterprise network.  What about gov't/DoD
> > networks?  They're not either as far as I can tell.
> > In which category would you put university networks?  They're not
> > enterprise.  Maybe we need to define enterprise network?
> >
> > scott
> >
> >
> > --- sircar.rana@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > From: Rana Sircar <sircar.rana@gmail.com>
> > To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
> > Cc: "ncrg@irtf.org" <ncrg@irtf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework
> > Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:05:34 +0530
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Thanks for the very nice Draft. The Draft is quite informative &
> > thought-out.
> >
> > Here are my 2 cents:
> > * As I have experienced, today networks can be classified into Telecom
> > & Enterprise ones. Most of the large networks are Brown-field networks
> > & to a lesser % we have Green-field scenarios. This is well covered in
> > the Draft, where you talk of backward compatibility. That apart,
> > networks have also got to be differentiated based on Access (Radio or
> > Cable or mix) or Metro / Core & Signaling. This is important since the
> > Constraints & Design goals are very different for each & thereby the
> complexity.
> > * Requirements for Network Design is typically the first stage. Based
> > on requirements the projects are undertaken. The next obvious stages
> > are Architecture, Planning, Design, Implementation & Operations /
> Management.
> > Complexity plays an important role at all these stages. Ability to
> > measure Complexity or put some order to it is important.
> > * This brings in an important measure of complexity in any network -
> > Interfaces - number of interfaces and or the types of interfaces.
> > Consider a hypothetical scenario - A completely homogeneous network
> > that is almost Plug & Play. This would be the simplest to Architect,
> Implement & maintain.
> > The other ends of the spectrum are the networks where everything
> > changes dynamically all the time.
> > * You do mention "Good, Fast, Cheap", but from Complexity perspective
> > Good becomes a bit difficult to measure - How Good is Good or Or Bad
> > is it. This was written in 1996. In 2012, many technologies are
> > already commoditized and as any PM would mention, Scope should play a
> > big role. So, no wonder that the PM looks at Scope, Cost & Time.
> >
> > I noticed that you are open to co-authors. I am not sure if you would
> > accept me as a co-author since I am between jobs. But needless to say,
> > I would be very keen to contribute, if allowed.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rana Pratap Sircar
> > GSM+919899003705|
> >
> >
> > On 15 October 2012 22:16, Michael Behringer (mbehring)
> > <mbehring@cisco.com>wrote;wrote:
> >
> >> Complexity group,
> >>
> >> As promised a long time ago, finally I created a first draft of the
> >> framework document:
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-behringer-complexity-framework
> >>
> >> Please note that this document is VERY draft. It needs a lot of
> >> additions, references to existing research, etc. There is a lot more
> >> existing material that should be referenced. I didn't have the time
> >> to do this before the deadline, and would indeed be very happy if
> >> some people would step forward and help make this document more
> complete.
> >>
> >> If you can help (as a co-author) to make this document valuable,
> >> please shout! :-)
> >>
> >> Any comments, suggestions, references, please reply-all!
> >>
> >> To be discussed in our meeting on the 5th of November.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ncrg mailing list
> >> ncrg@irtf.org
> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ncrg mailing list
> > ncrg@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ncrg mailing list
> > ncrg@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ncrg mailing list
> ncrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg