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

"Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.com> Mon, 20 February 2012 05:57 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 B7CE221F8672 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:57:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.437, 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 KmNem00lpk73 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bgl-iport-1.cisco.com (bgl-iport-1.cisco.com [72.163.197.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB1221F851A for <sop@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:57:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=adalela@cisco.com; l=8274; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329717464; x=1330927064; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:from:to; bh=mG7Lnedkj6fL7h9TLbvb+QgEy0u0peqde0B91SE3lHI=; b=I14MOmfTJIl3hTqIWisMYbTY1EELrGnNMpq8ScLGAvx+eAAhlXM5NSET 8f3r7Gjzcgt+UGx3vM1z0wc0yFU0GKIBywXqWt1+bgiwCsLaNxOJCgdtV eeEAcLPTmMXpqPoY6GIxMjdFLy7p0sZZ8WsNRR4TqK8d/4U0QOR4hpXDr 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAEzgQU9Io8UY/2dsb2JhbABDglGwZYF1AQQSAQkRA1sBKgYYB1cBBAsQGqYjgScBlhaMC2MCg18CWYI7YwSITJ9g
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,449,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217";a="5932572"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-4.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2012 05:57:42 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com [72.163.129.202]) by bgl-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1K5vgAM022667 for <sop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:57:42 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-416.cisco.com ([72.163.129.212]) by xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:27:42 +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_01CCEF94.8F478A65"
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:27:42 +0530
Message-ID: <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C510300237A@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: two architectures - which one do you prefer?
Thread-Index: AczvlI8F0BsazY9mR8mC1OIvBBxXLQ==
From: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <adalela@cisco.com>
To: <sop@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2012 05:57:42.0745 (UTC) FILETIME=[8F6DFC90:01CCEF94]
Subject: [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 05:57:47 -0000

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