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

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

>> >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.

Sheng