IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nmrg] RG Last Call on Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA Violations

"Alberto Gonzalez Prieto (albertgo)" <albertgo@cisco.com> Wed, 01 February 2017 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <albertgo@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8772129515 for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:20:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 co1-zn1tD2l0 for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:20:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D62A1294F7 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:20:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10894; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485973247; x=1487182847; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=am5m26pgNcfUUns22mR9mV4n/85sTVrlbwAfJz+jdFk=; b=FCIDSISSC5NSsoLKMZA3bks6hioITK6Hk+7U7FRz4ml5zMqVkTmFQOIu aosh3VlCd8Sd6edtk8DkKB8nJkLBb+WLWpiMSehZRvymqvP/vhYhEZXO6 BescPNZ9M/8JN5LdG3KHzr7jlVYT19UdmXgXAX0+yNci6W93oFel3dnC7 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BuAQA2JpJY/5pdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm9kYYEJB4NQigmiEYUrgg0fAQqFeAIagiQ/GAECAQEBAQEBAWIohGoCBAEBIUsbAgEIOwQDAgICJQsUEQIEARKJcg6tAIIlK4sBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWIUIJqgm+EZC6CMQWJDIw5hhcBkgKDU40qkwABHzg6gREVOxEBhGiBSHWHXYEMAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,321,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="203341059"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Feb 2017 18:20:45 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v11IKj7V023812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:20:45 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:20:44 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-003.cisco.com ([64.101.220.143]) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com ([64.101.220.143]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:20:44 -0500
From: "Alberto Gonzalez Prieto (albertgo)" <albertgo@cisco.com>
To: Jéferson Campos Nobre <jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br>, Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>, "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [nmrg] RG Last Call on Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA Violations
Thread-Index: AQHYTLA0PJh4x73ZpwqTyrxoAa/si6FEpHUQgAR6a4D//4VNgA==
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 18:20:44 +0000
Message-ID: <B73A3D5E-E5F1-4F4C-A104-46F2A80E79B6@cisco.com>
References: <00bc01d27a9e$f787a890$e696f9b0$@clemm.org> <CABv6xLt51_n5vf7taWv=SYnJu+07uvGK+2aj_Q7Mj9nM57zyVQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABv6xLt51_n5vf7taWv=SYnJu+07uvGK+2aj_Q7Mj9nM57zyVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.102.227]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B73A3D5EE5F14F4CA10446F2A80E79B6ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/uGxddfg_uMhM20pSDHy2JiZ5UJE>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] RG Last Call on Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA Violations
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 18:20:49 -0000

Hello,

I am one of the coauthors of the draft.
I also support the advancement of this draft.
I think the use case describes a key requirement. Its relevance is bound to increase as networks continue increasing in size and SLAs become commonplace.

Thanks,

Alberto


On 2/1/17, 9:40 AM, "nmrg on behalf of Jéferson Campos Nobre" <nmrg-bounces@irtf.org<mailto:nmrg-bounces@irtf.org> on behalf of jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br<mailto:jcnobre@inf.ufrgs.br>> wrote:

Hi,
I am also a coauthor and support this draft to be advanced. In addition to Alex's words, this I-D is one of the use cases presented in the UCAN BoF (which ultimately leaded to ANIMA creation).
We, the authors, have plans to proceed the work on the I-D topic in ANIMA (as an ASA), but current ANIMA charter is very clear about the work items, thus we are waiting for the recharter.
Best.
Jéferson
Em seg, 30 de jan de 2017 às 00:17, Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org<mailto:ludwig@clemm.org>> escreveu:
Hi,

As one of the coauthors, I support this draft to be advanced.  This is a fairly small draft, but I think one important issue that it raises, besides calling out the use case of needing to ensure that SLA violations are detected (maximizing the likelihood of detecting violated service level thresholds, as opposed to maximizing other things such as coverage), concerns the issue of distributing and decentralizing the logic for this across the network, as opposed to relying on central coordination.  Clearly, this is an issue for potentially contentious debate, but I think it may be worthwhile having requirements for this possibility spelled out.

--- Alex
_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
nmrg@irtf.org<mailto:nmrg@irtf.org>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email