Re: [ncrg] New Draft: Network Complexity Framework

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> Wed, 24 October 2012 12:25 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 7430521F8902 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:25:50 -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 wkJzQMu4CcFR for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E0621F884A for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5938; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1351081549; x=1352291149; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=RHqYUxoGEB20pFUvemJ0dk0WKCoEYjxLTD2s+1FaTu4=; b=c22s4wWYKAXvvrxiwe8jY8mxjp6nuLYYLr2K2j0WG30f/tT4M0AVzeru pUGGqlEOHO16vp9LLvVSLrC+mmHddGq5jLI2Lbu3D4avF7gHUyPyLzD7a 5mkLytcmujDXtZSoOMEJY5oud1hlCKoV67toutdCNH1k/iQHcV09Tp1Jm M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAPrdh1CtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABEwXyBCIIeAQEBBAEBAQ8BJzQGBQwEAgEIEQECAQEBAQoUCQchBgsUAwYIAgQBDQUIGodQAw8LmxiWKQ2JVIp5Z4YLYAOSBzqBXYJsihKDJYFrgm+CGA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,639,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="134848083"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2012 12:25:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9OCPmBT031386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:25:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.51]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:25:48 -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///A0zA=
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:25:47 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF0F572694@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--53.820300-8.000000-31
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 12:25:50 -0000

A small step back: Why is it important that we classify networks that early in the game? I would argue that a good metric should apply to any network type? It seems to me that if we stick to generic terms that apply to any network, the research would be easier to use in different environments? 

In the use cases of course I'd expect concrete examples. 

But, I'm open to suggestions. Rana made the original comment: What would you propose to add/change in the draft? I'm not entirely clear on that. 

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