Re: [sop] [Sdnp] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: sop -- ServiceOrchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services

Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2012 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mphmmr@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C0D21F86A7 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:22:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aAhLx9Yl-4Cw for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:22:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0200721F84D7 for <sop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lahl5 with SMTP id l5so3098891lah.31 for <sop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:22:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ce8NL0Jhash2vvIumkIU2mAb+bOZ7WyHSiwRCwV+QgI=; b=wKBtBoZfryRWKpiVfDmgaEa9LL0iY5jZpiRH8BizJ0tSS3RM7dRK5qKoIhSwUrwf9w teF8wcrgqdhUUcUj0otSUodj/56ZjKiZfYE0nfXhasZ/yOoTpPh/owZfZfAbN8sPIHfr S0T5AgrEu39vkichnOesi7uLfhm9M5FGC8BMw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.148.230 with SMTP id tv6mr2693070lab.12.1329412964989; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:22:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.104.70 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:22:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001EEE@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
References: <CB62CCB4.C846D%mmorrow@cisco.com> <470D91CE-5D54-48F8-8889-438DA873A3FA@lucidvision.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001E76@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAHEV9L3EiCHutLEYHTCbPc0b439k_47mda1y1ONmwthKrQMiYw@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001E8E@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAHEV9L0wgfFt_j6JPgb36vRSj0-LF3bS+NjUuKcTyKwoeVq3Sg@mail.gmail.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001EA3@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com> <CAHEV9L0w-E_Ejvbu=3DHo6kt4ssXmrZKZqzJe6NLCSrgak-cUg@mail.gmail.com> <8BEA2A9F-98D2-4828-BD68-5D980BD81EFE@lucidvision.com> <CAA3wLqW5mdKRpwheykEDXe2udjHsQBt5dHx7fsD62DhGGPaYLA@mail.gmail.com> <6EDB11CC-228B-4C1A-90F8-37E311D31878@lucidvision.com> <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C5103001EEE@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:22:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA3wLqWx0S5iR2=2_1tfLwYJ6NkJ_63xyNh_yEeYtRjN+-BveQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
To: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f22c33f89ba1804b9181321
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, sop@ietf.org, Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org>
Subject: Re: [sop] [Sdnp] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: sop -- ServiceOrchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services
X-BeenThere: sop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Service Orchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services <sop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sop>, <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sop>
List-Post: <mailto:sop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop>, <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:22:53 -0000

Ping,

One of the ideas here is to separate out the service-dependent and
service-independent aspects and hopefully provide a unifying framework to
many disparate projects ongoing.  So, it is not an either-or situation but
how to help unify these efforts.

As Ashish notes, we attempt to address some of these questions in those
drafts.

WRT Skype, this is also another case of lack of interoperability.  As you
probably saw, the EU had concerns about lack of interop with Cisco
vis-a-vis Tandberg in the past, and of course Cisco is bringing this to the
EU attention to keep the playing field level with respect to Skype.
 Whether it is Cisco-Tandberg or Microsoft-Skype, need to apply same rules
to both.

Architecturally, having to go through gateways everywhere is not a good
long-term solution.  It just doesn't scale well and leads to many broken or
Least Common Denominator results.  Not a very rich experience for the user.

I should also point out that governments, who are also very big customers,
do not want to be locked into just one solution.  You don't want to do
fork-lifts every time you move from one service provider to another.

Mike

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <adalela@cisco.com
> wrote:

> Tom,****
>
> ** **
>
> I would suggest to read the requirements draft, because number of
> questions you and Ping are asking here about the goal, IETF-fit,
> relationship to open-source are anticipated and discussed in that draft. To
> your point about who needs it - inter-cloud is a service provider need,
> hybrid-cloud is a provider and customer need, and vendor-interoperability
> is both provider and customer need.****
>
> ** **
>
> The requirements draft is here -
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dalela-orchestration-00****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks, Ashish****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* sop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sop-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas
> Nadeau
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:34 PM
> *To:* Michael Hammer
> *Cc:* sop@ietf.org; Ping Pan; Ashish Dalela (adalela)
> *Subject:* Re: [sop] [Sdnp] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: sop --
> ServiceOrchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Michael Hammer wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> For interoperability's sake across private and public clouds from
> different network providers, we are looking for a protocol to be developed.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>             Is this a service provider requirement or one from equipment
> vendors?****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> The analogy we are making is that on-demand provisioning of a voice/video
>  network circuit between two points is done with SIP.  Without interferring
> with that effort, and working in parallel, what is the difference with the
> on-demand provisioning of network/compute/storage over IP?****
>
> ** **
>
> Would you also argue that all the SIP work should not have been done in
> IETF?****
>
> Or that SIP should not have been done because there are open-source
> projects?****
>
> ** **
>
>             I am not arguing either way; I was asking the question to the
> wider audience.****
>
> ** **
>
>             --Tom****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
> wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> Good point Ping. That is the question in my mind. Does this belong
> somewhere else like where OpenStack is being done, or otherwise?****
>
> ** **
>
> --Tom****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Ping Pan wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Ashish Dalela (adalela) <
> adalela@cisco.com> wrote:****
>
> This isn’t just about the network resources and SOP isn’t only about
> provisioning network resources. The protocol definition is generalized to
> support any kind of service – network included.****
>
> ** **
>
> Be careful. Others have brought up similar proposal before. IETF stands
> for Internet Engineering TF... Networking is the name of the game. ;-) If
> not networking, I fear it would be wrong place to do the work.****
>
> ** **
>
> In SDN, our focus is on networking. Further, we are trying to
> distance ourselves from the actual DC network fabric design (all
> vendor-specific so far).****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Ping****
>
> _______________________________________________
> sop mailing list
> sop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sop mailing list
> sop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>