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:
> 
>> 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