Re: [sop] [Sdnp] Fwd: SOP and SDN Question

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Fri, 24 February 2012 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.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 161F621F8807 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:48:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 rKUlMoelx+s5 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7875921F8800 for <sop@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.100.68.228] (unknown [141.202.11.155]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BE21428B3; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:48:41 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F47B03C.8070301@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:48:44 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2FB85049-EE2C-4D28-80A3-D2364B2FDB42@lucidvision.com>
References: <CAA3wLqUZNK1XpMm8bZuXK4UcLxy4fKbjLvYK6iX537bWWEfqpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA3wLqW3y5_ucz+P5+be1+Js-56TnbJGNRQ=sB1p=SWyVZZt3Q@mail.gmail.com> <353D9CCB-2576-4A88-AAFC-DCE82FAF1101@lucidvision.com> <CAA3wLqWTkjx4ongiRoK887yOCKB-sMBRLZbVRq8VeUTzz+s_mQ@mail.gmail.com> <C9AE5879-FD8A-46FA-B08E-D1A2DDB010F3@lucidvision.com> <4F47B03C.8070301@raszuk.net>
To: robert@raszuk.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: sdnp@lucidvision.com, sop@ietf.org, Michael Hammer <mphmmr@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [sop] [Sdnp] Fwd: SOP and SDN Question
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:48:43 -0000

On Feb 24, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> 
>>> You seem to suggest that Open Flow can be expanded to include services
>>> besides networking.
>> 
>> I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Software Defined Networks (i.e.:
>> OpenFlow) is targeted at working at the hardware abstraction level only.
> 
> That's completely inaccurate.

	Not completely. *)
	
> SDN is all about network applications. You perhaps are confusing it with ONF which indeed at this point is focused on defining OpenFlow protocol.

	Software DRIVEN Networks is all about network applications *and* their interaction with network services and elements, of which a
subset is Software *defined* Networks (I.e.: OpenFlow).   We really need to pick a different term for Software Driven Networks because 
it is confusing everyone. People seem to equate "SDN" with OpenFlow without being clear about the "D".

	--Tom



> But protocols are not defined just by bunch of hardware enthusiasts. They are defined to address specific software defined applications.
> 
> Best,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> Software *Driven* Networks is
>> targeted at services and network elements.
>> There is a clear difference.
>> 
>> --Tom
> 
>