Re: [vnrg] [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: one or two blank looks on int-serv reference during the bar bof)
David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> Mon, 01 August 2011 16:31 UTC
Return-Path: <dmm@1-4-5.net>
X-Original-To: vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D6F21F8E4C for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5h7dzSEIpwvS for <vnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f50.google.com (mail-pz0-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819D621F8E54 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk2 with SMTP id 2so12475416pzk.9 for <vnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.54.164 with SMTP id k4mr7548919pbp.310.1312216322706; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.55.35 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117]
In-Reply-To: <4E36BE97.4030806@labn.net>
References: <CAHEV9L3avPiHVjBtttTL_7VbNeJ=Q=oegot2A_m8snN5vzNsgA@mail.gmail.com> <4E36BE97.4030806@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:32:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHiKxWgzftY7g5B=FmNoKeRe4hjZ1Ahk6TyUuLLRGuos5SDWxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 05:53:00 -0700
Cc: "sdnp@lucidvision.com" <sdnp@lucidvision.com>, Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org>, VNRG <vnrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [vnrg] [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: one or two blank looks on int-serv reference during the bar bof)
X-BeenThere: vnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Virtual Networks Research Group \(VNRG\) discussion list" <vnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/vnrg>, <mailto:vnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/vnrg>
List-Post: <mailto:vnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnrg>, <mailto:vnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:31:59 -0000
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote: > 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. I would say that virtualization is a "feature" you can build out of SDN. SDN is a more general concept, however. http://www.slideshare.net/martin_casado/sdn-abstractions has a nice description of what SDN is/could be. Dave > 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 >> <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com <mailto:nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>> 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 <tnadeau@lucidvision.com >> <mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com>> >> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:29:20 -0400 >> To: "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com <mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com>> >> Cc: "sdnp@lucidvision.com <mailto:sdnp@lucidvision.com>" >> <sdnp@lucidvision.com <mailto:sdnp@lucidvision.com>> >> >> 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" <Lyong@Ciena.com >> <mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com>> 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:* sdnp-bounces@lucidvision.com >>> <mailto:sdnp-bounces@lucidvision.com> >>> [mailto:sdnp-bounces@lucidvision.com] *On Behalf Of *Edward Crabbe >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:23 AM >>> *To:* Ping Pan >>> *Cc:* <mailto:sdnp@lucidvision.com>sdnp@lucidvision.com >>> <mailto:sdnp@lucidvision.com> >>> *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:edc@google.com>edc@google.com <mailto:edc@google.com>> >>> wrote:____ >>> >>> for reference, was referring to:____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> <http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2210.txt>http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2210.txt____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SDNP mailing list >>> <mailto:SDNP@lucidvision.com>SDNP@lucidvision.com >>> <mailto:SDNP@lucidvision.com> >>> <http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp>http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SDNP mailing list >>> SDNP@lucidvision.com <mailto:SDNP@lucidvision.com> >>> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SDNP mailing list >> SDNP@lucidvision.com <mailto:SDNP@lucidvision.com> >> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SDNP mailing list >> SDNP@lucidvision.com >> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp > _______________________________________________ > SDNP mailing list > SDNP@lucidvision.com > http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >
- Re: [vnrg] [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: one … Lou Berger
- Re: [vnrg] [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: one … Lou Berger
- [vnrg] 答复: Re: [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: … wu.bo
- Re: [vnrg] [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: one … David Meyer
- Re: [vnrg] [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: one … Ping Pan
- Re: [vnrg] [Sdnp] High-Level Motivation (Re: one … Ping Pan