Hello,
Please find comments inline.
>On 27/08/2019 18:03, Dmytro Shytyi wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am one of the authors of ID VYSM and I would like to draw your
>> attention to the evolution of the
>> draft https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shytyi-netmod-vysm-01.txt.
>> Recently we produced (but did not submitted yet) a new version of ID
>> (02) and I beleive it fits the netmod working group.
>>
>> We would be gratefull if you could suggest if the new version(02) of the
>> document could become an official work item of the WG?
>> If yes, could you please indicate which modifications must be done
>> in the document before submition.
>
>Hmm, looking over the model, it would seem there is quite a bit of
>overlap with RFC8345 -- to the point I believe the model could be
>formulated in terms of RFC8345 specialization:
First of all I would like to thank you for this comment.
-Dmytro
>virtualization -> networks/network
>
>device/links/interfaces/switches/vms are probably a mix of
>node/termmination-point/link extensions with conjunction with
>supporting-{topology,node,link}.
I can imagine mapping:
virtualization (ID) -> networks/network (RFC 8345)
links (ID)- >link;(RFC 8345)
ports (ID)-> termination points;(RFC 8345)
But still.. it seems here we have to create extension of the model proposed in
RFC 8345.
Precisely for node (RFC 8345) we may add types (switches, vms) and futer add
leafs /listsfor type if required (ex: #RAM,#vCPUs and other leafs for VMs)
-Dmytro
>How would the draft relate to RFC8345? Should it perhaps call out it is
>a different take on the similar problem, specialized to a particular
>use-case?
One can suggest that in the RFC8345 Figure 1, the block "service Topology
model" can include the proposed in the draft network service descriptor with
appropriate modification of mapping according to the RFC8345.
Meanwhile I find that the proposed solution(ID) try to solve the problem
descibed below:
The uCPE management mechanism may involve not only YANG modules but also the
speficif logic written in programming languages. The proposed organisation of
yang model is an attempt to find the best fit for combination (YANG modules +
specific logic written in python for example ) to manage different existing
NFVIs in the uCPE (by the orchestrator).
In the case of uCPE, the mapping (w/wo additinal logic) of "variables " between
service yang modules (in the orchestrator) and NETCONF payload(that is sent to
the uCPE) will be more complex (requires additional transformations in the
logic) with generic approach, then the solution presented in the ID, that is
tailored to the uCPE.
Therefore I find the proposed solution as a stadalone generic approach to
manage multiple vendor uCPE that appears to be a particular case tailored for
uCPE NFVIs that may be not nesseraly follows RFC8345. I would be pleased if you
could comment this.
-Dmytro
>Regards,
>Robert (with RFC8345 co-author hat on)
>+1, in addition, I am wondering whether this is something related to overlay
>topology model, if yes, how it is different from DC Fabric topology model
>defined in RFC8542?
>-Qin
Thank you for your comment. The RFC8542 condisers PODs in the DC network. uCPE
is located on the customer site. if we consider that uCPE is A POD (with links
and nodes like VMs and swithces) then in the RFC8542 describes different PODs
in the network that are interconnected with links. The yang model proposed in
the ID ifocuses only on the uCPE interiour network service, not the
interconnection between the uCPEs. Aslo, I explained the difference about
extension neded for type of nodes,vms leafs and furter complexity in the
mapping logic in the reponce to Robert.
-Dmytro
Best regards,
Dmytro._______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
