On 5 Oct 2016, at 12:45, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/4/16 8:02 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Hello,
the bof proposal below have been sent to OPS ADs (and INT ADs) and
posted on the BOF wiki page. Benoît asked that this to be discussed
here, since there is no public mailing list yet for this topic (we
shall soon).
So, I think we dicussed this is little bit back in march when the
drafts
were initially submitted. I think generally I'm postive on the idea of
working on a yang model for data interchange between ipam systems or
ipam systems and agents.
Where I get into a little trouble is with the architecture, because it
describes a couple of particular scenarios and my experience of
carrier
ipam systems doesn't really jive with that. In my experience, carrier
ipam systems are part of a software stack associated with resource
management of which address management is a component, not just ipam,
and they tend as a result to be somewhat idioscratic. to my mind
allocating resources for transition technologies is about the least
interesting application I can imagine for such a tool and a very small
portion of what it does, ours deals with v4 and v6 assignment simply
as
a matter of course.
even on a somewhat smaller scale our ipam system has adopted json
input
and output so I think there is certainly a great arguement for
standardizing the interchange format.
in some ways, you are exactly stating the purpose of the bof: having
other operators (than the original set) to chime in and provide their
input and requirements. With more open forum, we shall be able to get a
better set of common requirements and more focus and scope.
Regards, Marc.
thanks
joel
The primary purpose of the BOF is to extend the discussion to more
operators (and other parties obviously) than the initial set to get
an
(hopefully) common set of requirements and identifying possible
protocol work. It is a non- wg forming.
Regards, Marc.
===========
Name: IP Provisioning for SDN/NFV (ipprov)
Description: With the dynamic nature of SDN/NFV networks, providers
and data center operators have to manage more dynamically the IP
addressing and provisioning of network nodes, including various
network transition scenarios such as IPv4 as a service, where IP
address and prefixes consumption are critical and require timely and
dynamic reallocations. An initial set of providers have expressed
requirements, but with different scopes (eg: only IP addressing and
prefix management and delegation, vs larger provisioning scope). Some
initial prototyping of solutions and field trial has started. The
intent of the bof is to gather a common set of requirements from a
larger set of operators and, if needed, possible protocol work
milestones and scope.
Status: not WG-forming
Drafts: draft-xi-ps-centralized-address-management
draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-arch
draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang
The responsible Area Director (AD): OPS or INT
BoF Chairs (or the ADs as placeholders): Marc Blanchet and ...
Proponents: Chongfeng Xie(CT), Ying Cheng(CU)
Number of people expected to attend: 100
Length of session: 1.5 hour
Conflicts to avoid (first priority): sdnrg, nfv, intarea, nfvrg,
opsawg
Conflicts to avoid (second priority): dtn, sunset4
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
