Re: [vnrg] [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: one or two blank looks on int-serv reference during the bar bof)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Ping,
	Nice intro/overview.  So how does this effort relate to the VNRG
(http://irtf.org/vnrg, also cross-posted)?  Seems to me that there is a
fair bit of overlap.

Thanks,
Lou

On 8/1/2011 10:42 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> You have raised a very critical question here. During IETF and over the
> weekend, several have asked off-line about our motivation. Are we doing
> RSVP, UNI, GENI, bandwidth broker etc.?
> 
> So allow me to explain our thinking and motivation at very high level here:
> 
> (1) Why?
> 
> Many of us have been a part of the Internet creation and deployment in
> the past many years. It has become something more than we had dreamed
> for better or for worse. While we were squeezing the last bit of
> inefficiency out of routing, forwarding and policing, the new
> applications have emerged and proliferated. While we were designing the
> interface between transport, packet, broadband and wireless networks,
> the new services have been created and deployed simply over the
> underlying networks. While we were optimizing the use of bandwidth and
> processing on our hardware, the Moore's Law has made all parts of the
> network less expensive each day. This is the way it is!
> 
> The interface between application and network has been an interesting
> area: We have seen the approach in closing the network and enforcing
> tighter control over users within a walled garden (good luck!). We have
> also seen the attempts in pushing the traditional network
> operation methodology into applications (yuk!)
> 
> My belief is that we should open up the network, embrace
> new applications and provide simpler and easier interface to the users.
> The value of the network is in attracting more traffic, more users and
> more applications, not in creating more middlemen.
> 
> Many have been saying that network should be a "dumb pipe". True and
> false. It's true that, as far as users are concerned, any link between
> two network endpoints should be predictable and reliable as a simple
> wire. At the same time, the network needs to be pretty smart in making
> the interface dumb.
> 
> Today, we can create connections at any layer, at any rate, in any
> format, with any property and in any granularity inside the network. Our
> motivation here is in making the network connections visible and
> programmable to the applications.
> 
> (2) Why us?
> 
> For a long time, Web and network technologies have been developed
> in parallel. However, the recent demand in data centers requires
> the massive web transaction and the heavy network transport taking place
> within a few hundred feet. Web operation, driven by massive parallel
> processing and massive content replication, demands simple and cheaper
> network support. To date, no network port is faster enough, and no
> application-network operation is efficient enough.
> 
> I believe that the network technology needs to scale up
> and accommodate the demand from the applications. We need to make our
> network simpler, easier and more efficient. (Yes, we say this every time
> when we start a new project, the outcome is always contradicting. But,
> we try anyway! ;-))
> 
> We envision to create programmable network API's, by adapting both
> networking and application techniques. We will leverage the existing
> networking technologies, designed and defined in IETF, to create,
> monitor and discover network resources, services and connections. And we
> will leverage the scalable and secure message processing capability from
> Web (or over port-80) for API's.
> 
> (3) Examples (be more specific)
> 
> Network programmability applies in many places, and we see a few
> applications need to be solved real fast.
> 
> First, the VM network interface is VLAN. As such, any VM network-level
> service manipulation need to be accomplished through the management at
> VLAN-granularity. 
> 
> For example, if VM applications require non-disruptive services, the
> service operators may map the VM's to the network links with bandwidth,
> delay and protection constraints, by utilizing MPLS and FRR to achieve
> network-wide support.
> 
> Another example is in supporting enterprise VPN's. In this scenario, the
> service operators may bundle the relevant VM's to the corresponding MPLS
> VPN's. All the techniques defined in IETF can be readily used to support
> VM mobility and service security here.
> 
> Another area we need to to look at is in the area of video/media
> services. OTT video services will likely store the content on the data
> centers, and utilize local CDN's for delivery (take a look at Netflix).
> The content may be replicated from data center to data center, and CDN's
> may utilize different distribute techniques. However, the service
> operators may map the (logical) content to the actual distribution
> engines with service guarantees. I know some of the work has
> been discussed in ALTO, so let's work together there.
> 
> Service monitoring is another important aspect of the work. Each web
> service is supported by many back-end applications, which may operated
> in different locations. To have a robust service, the service operators
> need to have a way to monitor and guarantee network-services to those
> services.
> 
> In summary, we envision SDN work to bridge the gap between the
> applications and the network. In the future, we may address
> inter-networking concerns. However, much of the networking-level work
> can be solved with a better OSS. I'd prefer to solve the
> application-network interfacing issues first.
> 
> 
> (4) Next Steps
> 
> I have an old-school when it comes to this: running code and rough
> consensus!
> 
> In the coming weeks, we would like to collect more use cases,
> collaborate with many, learn from each other. At the end, we should put
> together the architecture, protocol design and hopefully some prototypes.
> 
> Hope this makes sense.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> - Ping
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Bitar, Nabil N
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     I think during the meeting a good spectrum of use cases was
>     discussed raging from data center type applications to the case of
>     inter-provider connection setup or policy transfer.  It seems that
>     there is a need to put down the use cases on paper and see what
>     existing mechanisms can be used to address these use cases and why
>     there is new work needed. Is it fresh new work or extensions to
>     existing mechanisms?  What are the gaps  in what exists is being
>     solved? It is not clear to me that there is one hammer that will be
>     able to address all the use cases , and if needed, without
>     recreating the wheel or adding complexities or deficiencies  That
>     may be biased by the view I had walking into the meeting that there
>     was tendency to focus on the interface between the application and
>     the SDN controller  to request resources maybe subject to
>      constraints, to receive information, response to a request and/or
>     notification  from the SDN controller. What the SDN controller does
>     may capitalize on existing mechanisms which will be dependent on the
>     use case and the nature of the application request.  While the
>     interface can be generic  and extensible, the use case or
>     application will drive what information is exchanged.
>     I appreciate a clarification if all the the following still at play
>     here or something was pruned out or too early to prune:
> 
>        1. application -SDN controller interface. What is the function of
>           that interface is going to be application dependent. That goes
>           for other interfaces
>        2. SDN controller-SDN interface
>        3. SDN controller-SDN controller interface
>        4. Path computation (not necessarily TE ) for a tunnel or
>           microflow based on certain constraints. 
>        5. flow mapping to a path, including flow classification and
>           configuration on every hop.
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Nabil
>     From: Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:29:20 -0400
>     To: "Ong, Lyndon" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     Cc: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>     Subject: Re: [Sdnp] one or two blank looks on int-serv reference
>     during the bar bof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:15 AM, "Ong, Lyndon" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>>     Hi Guys,____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Regarding (2), if we’re agnostic then this work seems to be more
>>     general, it could apply to OF-controlled networks,
>>     MPLS/GMPLS-controlled networks, PCE/non-PCE, etc.____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Regarding (3) not sure that this follows – in a lot of the control
>>     plane technologies there is a way to control the path.  Question,
>>     though, how much does an application need to know about the path?
>>
> 
>     I think that depends on what the application is and what it's
>     purpose is. It may be interested in network resources other than
>     just links and paths. Also, as Danny mentioned in his use case
>     yesterday there is a need for varying levels of granularity here. 
> 
>     Tom
> 
>>     ____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Cheers,____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Lyndon____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     BTW, the comparison to intserv reminds me that when I try to
>>     explain OF to people, they commonly ask why this is different from
>>     FORCES!____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>
>>     <imageb58e9e.gif@b6446a3d.24d4497b
>>     <mailto:imageb58e9e.gif@b6446a3d.24d4497b>>
>>
>>     *From:* [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Edward Crabbe
>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:23 AM
>>     *To:* Ping Pan
>>     *Cc:* <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     *Subject:* Re: [Sdnp] one or two blank looks on int-serv reference
>>     during the bar bof____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>         Our goal here is to solve a specific problem: map application
>>         flows (in whatever the form) into physical network tunnels.____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     three things here: ____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     1) so basically, you're saying you want a common language to
>>      build a FEC, mapping a set of n-tuple matches (vlan, whatever)
>>     into a specific encapsulation?____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     2) are these tunnels pre-existing?  if so, fine, if not, we now
>>     have to set up the tunnel, at which point we're back to dealing
>>     with either OF type per hop state setup or an existing end to
>>     end signaling protocol (and  we're dealing with things at a per
>>     host, app level?  Thus the  int-serv reference ;-).  Perhaps the
>>     idea is to be agnostic regarding path setup method here?____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     3) would this also imply that that definition of the
>>     characteristics, including path,  that the tunnel takes over the
>>     underlying infrastructure is in scope?____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>      ____
>>
>>         No need in limiting applications, and no need in making
>>         network smarter (or dumber). ;-)
>>         ____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         Thanks!____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         - Ping
>>
>>         ____
>>
>>         On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Edward Crabbe <
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>         wrote:____
>>
>>             for reference, was referring to:____
>>
>>             __ __
>>
>>             <http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2210.txt>http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2210.txt____
>>
>>             __ __
>>
>>             __ __
>>
>>             __ __
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             SDNP mailing list
>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>             <http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp>http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     SDNP mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     SDNP mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SDNP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp