Re: [nmrg] Comments on autonomic use cases

Joe, 

I like your ideas. Why don't you write them up, either as a standalone use case, or with Laurent? It would be interesting to see a concrete example of such an autonomic behaviour, and deduce which type of interactions would be required. 

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmrg [mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke
> (jclarke)
> Sent: 06 March 2014 16:56
> To: nmrg@irtf.org
> Subject: [nmrg] Comments on autonomic use cases
> 
> After listening to the talks today, I have an overall comment related to
> network traceability in an autonomic environment.  I was very intrigued by
> Laurent's talk as I have been doing work in this area using Cisco embedded
> automation.  I strongly feel that we should be doing more autonomic cross-
> device analysis of problem conditions to do smart rerouting in the case of
> instability.  For example, in addition to local factors like temperature and
> load, we could look at path or hop stability in terms of dropped packets
> along a flow, jitter, latency, etc. and determine a new optimum/stable path.
> 
> Additionally, with respect to the troubleshooting section in draft-jiang-
> nmrg-an-gap-analysis-00, I think there is something that can be done
> autonomically relating to hardware failure.  Given Laurent's ideas again, a
> device that can detect imminent failure (e.g., SMART-like operations on
> harddrives), and make proactive changes to the network to reroute around
> an impending hardware failure until humans can get involved.  This can
> prevent extended outages.  Perhaps this is something that could
> supplement this section of text.
> 
> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nmrg mailing list
> nmrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg