Hi Quintin,
Thanks, lots of good points. A few quick responses inline and we discuss in more detail offline. (Apologies to the PCE list, we will take this offline until charter discussions have taken place or we hear otherwise.) From: Quintin Zhao [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 December 2012 19:58 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: A new draft on an architecture for application-based network operations Dear Dan and Adrian, The draft is very good and is helpful coordinate PCE and TE technologies between applications and network. I focused on some sections and have following questions and suggestions. (1) Applicability of ABNO Architecture. Your document abstract and introduction discusses scenarios including content and data-center interconnection ("Services such as content distribution, distributed databases, or inter-data center connectivity place a set of new requirements on the operation of networks."). I think the architecture is also relevant to lots of other environments: mobile backhaul, core transport, packet switch network, etc. Do you agree? DK>> Yes, that's true. We did focus on the data center applicability as we presented some slides at MPLS Washington 2012 which discussed that specific scenario and the draft followed some of the same language. (2) ABNO Controller. Section 2.2.13 (ABNO controller) needs to be discussed in more detail. Do you think multiple ABNO controllers or just one ABNO controller will be required? Maybe an implementation will use a ABNO Controller per "application" (Service Coordinator/NMS/OSS)? DK>> When we were white boarding and discussing the architecture we certainly considered that a number of the ABNO components would require multiple instances per deployment, including the ABNO Controller. As per your next point we will try to be more specific in the ABNO text. (3) PCE or PCE's? Figure 1 shows *a* PCE. It is expected that multiple PCE' would be used, this is important for VNTM Use Case. Maybe you can show more PCE's in the figure 1 or describe it? DK>> As Above, yes. (4) Network Resiliency. I am interested in ABNO managing network failures that may be protected with shared mesh protection at the network which could be MPLS TP or WDM. ABNO would provide a shared path protection which optimizes as network conditions change. This is based on client layer requirements of reliability and protection restoration time. To make this possible the shared mesh protection paths would need to be client layer traffic aware and have customer SLA information. Do you think this is a good use case? DK>> Cool. I think this could represent quite a complex multi-layer optimization problem. Please let Adrian and me have more information on the scenario. Ideally documenting the various component functions (specific for the use case) and each component interaction, again with some detail on what information needs provided and perhaps propose protocol mechanism or extensions. Think of the draft as a tool kit. We would like to reuse existing technology as much as possible. The use case should reflect this. (5) Custom (Abstracted) Topologies. Could ABNO provide abstracted topologies via the north-bound interface to the requester (provisioning tool)? In China we have the customers who would like IPv6 deployment in IPv4 backbone. If provider can assign specific nodes and links to be used for logically isolated IPv6 plane, then the ABNO (I2RS and BGP-LS) architecture could be used to provide abstracted topology based on the preferred equipment for carrying tunneled IPv6 traffic. Is this another use case that may be useful? DK>>Maybe we can focus on the SMP use case first. This use case might benefit from some of the discussion Young raised yesterday, in terms of the virtual topology presentation. (6) Manageability and Security. Are you going to provide Manageability and Security sections in future versions of the ABNO document or another document? It is an important area for ABNO that needs further discussion. DK>> We will most definitely include some discussion in the ABNO framework, along with policy. Thanks! Quintin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 22:58:58 -0000 From: "Daniel King" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: [Pce] A new draft on an architecture for application-based network operations Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi PCE'rs, Adrian and I posted an I-D which is a rather grandiose attempt to pull together a number of existing architectural components (PCE, VNTM, I2RS, policy, etc., etc.). This is a sort of meta-SDN PCE-based architect-thingy. It needed a name, so we called it Application-Based Network Operations (ABNO), warning it's not house trained and may answer to various other names: A PCE-based Architecture for Application-based Network Operations http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-00 As some of you will know this is the result of numerous discussions we have had with a number of people over the last three months. Where pieces of the puzzle seem to have been coagulating, we thought it might be nice to build a framework in which the jelly (jello) can set. It is at a really early stage, so we are convinced you will all throw stuff at us, but what the hell! As it stands, the current draft includes: - A brief description of abstraction functional components and the interfaces between them. - An attempt to supply pointers to existing work (tool kit) where that may be applicable and there are some use case examples to give a feel for how it all works. - Various ABNO use cases. A number of areas need further discussion, especially the use cases. We decided to submit with the few we do have, in order to generate some feedback - anyone who wants to supply use case(s) and text, would receive hero status. We have pitched the document as a PCE working group document because PCE is a central component, but the document doesn't really fall inside the PCE charter. For the time being it might be best to send comments direct to us rather than clutter up any WG mailing list with discussions that are outside the charter (but if some WG chair wants to claim the work, then...) Thanks, Dan and Adrian ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce End of Pce Digest, Vol 99, Issue 1 **********************************
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
