Re: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Wed, 24 October 2012 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
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 1A04621F8940 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.838
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.761, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 4zizEcwOHIhk for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from portland.eukhosting.net (portland.ukserverhosting.net [92.48.103.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B2B21F893D for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=g11.org.uk; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject; bh=HoUeL/YlXGJr3Pk9yWi/LiHPj3FIRtThYXKOaoSxCqA=; b=peVkTzNtHKPfuHIu6U2uPNK94+WdrEECQV7RGFh1w9zfCIGbRFrBoGghSnB9xqGyaV8chyZ7ELgxRyvDrPbYQ3OHMEa6ZAUp+qWpFcaOMhqmCpr8cpuIDCfQ/5/wUDmZ;
Received: from c-76-111-69-4.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([76.111.69.4]:62552 helo=[192.168.0.20]) by portland.eukhosting.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) id 1TQymX-0000Cj-97; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:05:53 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20121023173616.7A0A3BDC@m0005296.ppops.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:05:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <82A29460-1205-4403-A49E-AE84020629B1@g11.org.uk>
References: <20121023173616.7A0A3BDC@m0005296.ppops.net>
To: surfer@mauigateway.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - portland.eukhosting.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: 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 11:05:59 -0000

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