Re: [sop] two architectures - which one do you prefer?

"Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.com> Mon, 20 February 2012 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <adalela@cisco.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 4BE5921F871B for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:32:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.388, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 CVHzvjeB45Jq for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:32:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2691C21F8726 for <sop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:32:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=adalela@cisco.com; l=11403; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329730345; x=1330939945; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:from:to; bh=rbTlN7rkCBO7ddMlgNOdYkz0mdiA871u7XElEzhmu1Q=; b=jxbt/B+yeM702WG6FpVa8Gd3X2waAFLVXe+wyZhbWXwhTd7D2kZt42J/ VbVZExuBvp0S1jOmKdugB/rQomM2cTjYc9kXLh8onqGPqn4K1bGHAzR7s HpH5Vg1k5g19x2xY1XQVVw5R/jX0BihiCO9eeHNld50hst/J1DNhUaxrj A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EALMSQk9Io8UR/2dsb2JhbABEgk2vaIEHgXMBAQEEEgEJEQNbAQgRBAEBCwYYB04JAQQLCAgaoWWBJwGeIot/DA5XhnVjBIhMn2A
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,450,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="31294878"
Received: from bgl-core-2.cisco.com ([72.163.197.17]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2012 09:32:22 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com [72.163.129.201]) by bgl-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1K9WLck023055 for <sop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:32:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-416.cisco.com ([72.163.129.212]) by xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:02:21 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CCEFB2.8BD03799"
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:02:21 +0530
Message-ID: <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C510300242D@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: two architectures - which one do you prefer?
Thread-Index: AczvlI8F0BsazY9mR8mC1OIvBBxXLQAHWZHw
From: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.com>
To: <sop@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2012 09:32:21.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C049730:01CCEFB2]
Subject: Re: [sop] two architectures - which one do you prefer?
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:32:29 -0000

 

BTW, these may not be the only architectures out there. So, if anyone
believes there are more architectures, it would be great to have that in
the discussion. I'm just familiar with two of them, so hope to hear if
there are more. I realize that "God" may be a strong word for some
people (J), but we could replace this with the word "controller" without
loss of meaning.

 

Thanks, Ashish

 

From: Ashish Dalela (adalela) 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:28 AM
To: sop@ietf.org
Subject: two architectures - which one do you prefer?

 

Folks,

 

There are two dominant architectures being pushed for cloud in the
industry today.

 


1.  Application is the God of the datacenter. All infrastructure is food
supplied to the application to continue its operation, and additional
infrastructure is provisioned if an application asks for it. The
"management" of the infrastructure is in the application, because the
infrastructure really exists for the purposes of the application. You
obviously have to often re-write or re-design or at the least enhance
your applications to be able to orchestrate the infrastructure. 

 

2.  A new God is created for both infrastructure and application. In
this model, some new controller monitors both application and
infrastructure, holds the policies for which application / user can have
which resources, how much a user has to be billed for a type of service,
etc. You don't have to re-write your applications but you have to create
an additional control layer on top of infrastructure and application.
You want this additional layer to be as flat as possible, but allow
sufficient abstractions for easy control.

 

These obviously entail different architectures, from an application
control standpoint. In the first model, the application controls itself
and the infrastructure. In the second model, the application is also a
resource along with infrastructure, managed by some external controller.

 

Any discussion or comments on these two models?

 

Thanks, Ashish