Re: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework

Rana Sircar <sircar.rana@gmail.com> Sun, 21 October 2012 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sircar.rana@gmail.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 9ECC621F8993 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 m6pkfr6aeZuF for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E25221F8907 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id rp8so1505802pbb.13 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=gs0O+Dn+W3xq9Zlr6RAZDQ9T18EbgLgTJPORbdjtp8c=; b=0NFc+awXk2Ja/l8ZnNeBHfS4VJ8Zv1Duv2RS2JrulWtFNbRQ82hvwzlEPiW88Wnoat DilbHWR0KDUApL1aokUcBRJ5j8heWc77vKzgMBaD8XI+Z7Mx3Rt92L1CE6B4AoEWAzNe J5TRDzJeu2449uzXl01IVKo2ywrDIFEJomrnvPnRUNODk0jqir3BPo4fqFXujb4MyW2o lS+fIFoTpMa83tR/da1kftJ2PYiVitOpmM3YEOBUC9WiAYsQ+iNtHtL4AIO66QtK2ODm frLuCrjoxtAwekWUwsBweYlMbNxEnaCoZDcSgO+w7a/LwofMTK71DoAL5/8xI46O39PT jxKw==
Received: by 10.68.138.198 with SMTP id qs6mr23049093pbb.151.1350837354615; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.209.70 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF0F567823@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF0F567823@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
From: Rana Sircar <sircar.rana@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:05:34 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPjPJcnaST=ry5AxS1tUO5Cg7gLzhT60667Wr_ESQT525a--vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b15a57dabd2ad04cc945477
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: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:35:58 -0000

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
>