Re: [nmrg] Control plane [was Next version of draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions]

[Laurent Ciavaglia <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Isn't there some ITU-T Rec defining such options? i.e. we could 
cite/re-use these agreed definitions. I will check... but if someone has 
some pointers, feel free to share them.

Best regards, Laurent.


On 30/07/2014 22:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 30/07/2014 20:45, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 29 July 2014 22:22
>>> To: Laurent Ciavaglia
>>> Cc: Michael Behringer (mbehring); [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Control plane [was Next version of draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-
>>> network-definitions]
>>>
>>> Just commenting on one point from Laurent. I'll stick to cross-posting for
>>> this point. In due course I think we should avoid it, but OK for now.
>>>
>>>> -It is not clear/straightforward what "in the global context of each device"
>>> means. If we want to say that the control protocols can run in-band/out-
>>> band, let's just say that.
>>>
>>> Yes, I think we have to be more explicit. One approach is to have an explicit
>>> autonomic control plane which is an in-band overlay on the physical
>>> network. Another approach is to make this implicit - just use the existing
>>> L2/L3 network but without considering it to be a control plane at all (that's
>>> what most routing protocols do). A third approach would be a truly separate
>>> control plane such as a dedicated L2VPN. The point is that they could all
>>> support autonomic behaviour; it's a design choice.
>> Suggestions for better wording is welcome. For a L3 device it's relatively clear: It's either the global routing table or a virtual routing table, such as a VRF, or a virtual router. Problem is that the concept of the Autonomic Control Plane as described in draft-behringer-autonomic-control-plane applies also to non-L3 devices, for example to switches or NMS systems, or ....
>>
>> So, what is the generic term for "global routing table" and "virtual routing table" which is valid also for non-L3 devices?
>>
>> So, the full range of options is:
>> - inband, as we run for example IGPs today
>> - Over a configured VPN ("management VPN")
>> - Over the self-managing Autonomic Control Plane (See above mentioned draft)
>> - Over a "real" out of band network.
>>
>> Should we list those,
> IMHO, we should definitely list them.
>
>> and explain what they do in a bit more detail? Maybe that would make things clearer...
> I'm not sure that is needed in the definitions draft; it might get a bit
> complicated. But I certainly have no objection to one or two sentences
> for each one. We should probably avoid pros and cons, since that is
> not the job of a definition.
>
>     Brian
>

-- 

Bien cordialement, Best regards,

*Laurent Ciavaglia*

Research Manager | Project Manager

Network Algorithms, Protocols and Security Group

Bell Labs | Alcatel Lucent

phone: [phone]

email: [e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]>

linkedin: laurentciavaglia <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/laurentciavaglia/>

address: Route de Villejust | 91620 NOZAY | France