IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nmrg] [Anima] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> Fri, 27 June 2014 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mbehring@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9994E1B2F3B for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 02:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3omOzxTgrYaw for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 02:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21A21B2CED for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 02:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2120; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1403862388; x=1405071988; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Q1ocg8J5OpNSx2I5G6lSNDvnux7wSBsoRFUuWIlVarE=; b=jlzOsRA46rGT0L2Y9tp0jeFyIe5LK1lupCAJvycsq1I+g5APf2SZ/9R9 z6zWl8icyfpk/Fiy7oJ+DR+Eb9l7pecK2nSM6sJhbgrM9e8f/6fI51DWA z4D84VQHXG3pbLWpId+w1tpjIa8TrOkeZkkZr4nCFFSkA9cSUtVA4NszG E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuMFALM8rVOtJA2E/2dsb2JhbABbgw1SWqo0AQEBAQEBBQFtkT2HQAGBCRZ1hAMBAQEDAQEBATc0EAcEAgEIEQQBAQsUCQcnCxQJCAIEARIIiDIIDcMYEwSFZIgxEyc4BoMngRYFrk6DQoFuQg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,559,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="56419208"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2014 09:46:27 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5R9kPHG024726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:46:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.51]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:46:25 -0500
From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Anima] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00
Thread-Index: AQHPkdrr6+2vwpJ910WiHlHnnKpqvZuEtJXw
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:46:24 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF21BD3776@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF21BCA03D@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AEBC73A@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF21BD222A@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AEC11E3@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF21BD33ED@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AEC1488@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AEC1488@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.55.238.133]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/7aJ2mbk3LWTN3u2tKe3KOP-KOdQ
Subject: Re: [nmrg] [Anima] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list <nmrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/nmrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nmrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:46:28 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima [mailto:anima-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang
> Sent: 27 June 2014 09:39
> To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); anima@ietf.org; nmrg@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-
> definitions-00
> 
> >> >The only thing that's not covered is the "network wide". But that's
> >> >also not necessarily true, because an autonomic function could well
> >> >span only a few devices.
> >>
> >> Hi, Michael,
> >>
> >> The point is how much scale of autonomic function can be called an
> >> autonomic network. Say, if there is a network with hundreds devices,
> >> two of these devices has been deployed some autonomic functions. Can
> >> the network be claimed as an autonomic network? "Network wide" does
> >> not mean every devices. It means a large portion of the network have
> >> autonomic functions.
> >
> >The fundamental question is whether we want to include autonomic
> >functions that for example just involve two devices. And I would
> >strongly suggest YES, for example I can see improvements on VRRP in the
> >future as an autonomic function (you could already claim some limited
> >autonomy, in fact). We want to cover that, right?
> 
> That's a valid use case for autonomic function deployment. But, with these
> two devices autonomic hot standby or backup each other, should the whole
> network be called an autonomic network? If you think "network-wide" is a
> too high threshold for autonomic network, we can work out some lower
> description.

Indeed, many people will probably imply that what we call an "autonomic network" is actually what we define as a "fully autonomic network". 
Maybe the better phrase would be "partially autonomic network". 

But, no doubt we'll have more discussions around this at the IETF. I suggest to leave it for now, discuss at NMRG how people feel we should call it. OK? 
 
Michael

> Sheng
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email