Re: [nmrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-09.txt

Alexander Clemm <> Wed, 28 June 2017 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAA2129B94 for <>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M5vzqGQx02GH for <>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A18DC129AF3 for <>; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CFJ63701; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 13:03:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:03:25 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:03:23 -0700
From: Alexander Clemm <>
To: =?utf-8?B?SsOpZmVyc29uIENhbXBvcyBOb2JyZQ==?= <>, Brian E Carpenter <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [nmrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-09.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS7iehvao8Rbw4B0KTLrEhclOM1qI4TRKAgAK7HgD//4sFIA==
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:03:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0E0BE10DSJCEML702CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-09.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:03:31 -0000

Hello Brian,

Just to add to Jeferson’s response, to your comment re: whether there is applicability of ANIMA.  This is clearly specified in the draft in several places, e.g. section 5 top of page 9: “The provisioning of the P2P overlay should be transparent for the
   network administrator.  An Autonomic Control Plane such as defined in
   [I-D.anima-autonomic-control-plane<>] provides an ideal candidate for
   the P2P overlay to run on.”

In other words, this is clearly a decentralized autonomic application which requires a secure overlay for nodes (Autonomic Service Agents, in RFC 7575 parlance – come to think of it, we should add a reference to RFC 7575) to communicate with one another that could run on top of the ANIMA ACP. Really, very complementary.

--- Alex

From: nmrg [] On Behalf Of Jéferson Campos Nobre
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 10:54 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter <>om>;
Subject: Re: [nmrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-09.txt

Hi Brian.
Thanks for the comments.
Answers below.

Em seg, 26 de jun de 2017 às 21:12, Brian E Carpenter <<>> escreveu:

> 7.  Implementation Considerations
>    The active measurement model assumes that a typical infrastructure will have multiple network segments and Autonomous Systems (ASs), and  a reasonably large number of routers.

Could the authors clarify what they mean by Autonomous System?
Is this intended in the precise sense of a BGP4 AS or in a more
general way?

Yes, AS in the I-D can be read as a BGP AS. In any case, we are just describing a active measurement model at this point.

This is important for the applicability of the ANIMA solutions to
this use case, since it is hard to imagine an ANIMA Autonomic Control
Plane extending beyond a single BGP4 AS, and certainly not beyond
a single administrative domain.

Agreed, but the solution described in our I-D considers cooperative peers. Thus, it is safe to say that it targets single administrative domains which means that the ACP could be used.

Have the authors already studied the applicability of the ANIMA

We did not study the applicability of ANIMA solutions for this I-D, but we have plans to do in a new one if a new ANIMA charter allow such possibility.

   Brian Carpenter


nmrg mailing list<>