Distribution trimmed to Anima: Whenever I've asked "Is X Intent?", I've usually been told "No" except for cases where X is too abstract to interpret algorithmically.
But in practice, I believe that many ASAs will need instructions from the NOC to modify their default behaviour. I don't care what we call those instructions; for the prefix management use case we just called them "parameters". So maybe Anima should focus on parameter distribution more than on Intent. I think that's the point of draft-liu-anima-grasp-distribution. A fairly simple change to the wording of draft-du-anima-an-intent would adapt it to generic parameter distribution. Converting abstract Intent to concrete parameters can be completely separate from this, and could well be a centralised operation. Or we could spend another 6 months discussing how to know Intent when we see it. But I would prefer that to happen in NMRG. Regards Brian On 26/07/2017 08:34, Toerless Eckert wrote: > I have an autonomic network, and i want for another customer another > L3VPN service instance in it. How would i tell the network that i want > this ? Via intent or via something else ? > > If it is something else, what is it ? I do not see any other information flow > from > operator to network beside intent in RFC7575 or > draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. > Maybe i am missing something. > > If it is intent, how would it look like ? Could it simply be a definition > of an L3VPN service instance in the model defined in rfc8049 ? If not, why > not ? > > IMHO: Intent in ANIMA includes service definitions such as what rfc8049 is, > except that we would reserve the right to eliminate all parameters of rfc8049 > for which we figure out autonomic ways to determine them. Which alas seems to > be quite difficult for most parameters. > > Other folks in the IETF clearly think that a service definition is NOT intent, > but intent can only be some yet unclear high level policy. If thats the > prevailing opinion/wisdom in the IETF, then IMHO we need to be more explicit > about the > fact that Intent is not the only input into the network but that there is > also other input. Such as services. And anything else that people do not want > to > call Intent. > > Lets assume service and other necessary data operator->network should not > be called intent. But lets say the superset of intent + services + everything > else is called eg: "information". I think that draft-du-anima-an-intent > would equally apply to all information we would want to distribute into > an autonomic network. > > Cheers > Toerless > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
