Re: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework

::  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:

> 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