Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
Markus Stenberg wrote: >> Note also that a BoF has been requested, just in case. >> Since HOMENET was mentioned during the UCAN BoF, I thought of >>double-checking with you guys. > TL;DR: Please either add homenet (and solutions already in the WG) to > the WG goals, or drop IoT too and just focus on enterprise. I see your point; if you think that much IoT will be in the home. However, there are significant areas of IoT deployment into industrial settings which have very different availability of human resources. While in the home, there is perhaps an IoT : HUMAN ration of 1000:1, which is to say that in an average home of 100 devices, there is barely 10% of a human available set them up, in industrial settings the ratio could be even worse (1:1?), but still that might leave a team of ten trained humans available to create Intents. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- pgp1lSXvkXMx6.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
Benoit Claise wrote: > Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having an ANIMA WG: > Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach > This is now a proposed charter, under consideration by the IESG. > This is your chance to provide feedback on > http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/charter/ Thanks. I have read the charter. Thank you for trying to restrict it to something focused. I think you have enough focus, but there still significant space for scope creap. Why not build this issue into the charter? Mar 2015 - recharter to refocus scope [In reading it, I was reminded of the SNMP v2 security wars of 1995. Can we have enough security present in order to configure the system to have security, was part of the underlying debate. I think we can do it now.] -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- pgpNHavVTSfM3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
On 01/10/2014 18:27, Markus Stenberg wrote: On 1.10.2014, at 16.20, Benoit Claise wrote: Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having an ANIMA WG: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach This is now a proposed charter, under consideration by the IESG. This is your chance to provide feedback on http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/charter/ Note also that a BoF has been requested, just in case. Since HOMENET was mentioned during the UCAN BoF, I thought of double-checking with you guys. TL;DR: Please either add homenet (and solutions already in the WG) to the WG goals, or drop IoT too and just focus on enterprise. Looking at the milestones, I am very curious about lack of requirements or architecture work before promoting solutions and even WGLCing them. As mentioned in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg00246.html A few observations, to start with: 1. Autonomic Networking could be a huge explanatory field. 2. From the BoF, we heard (among other points): There is interest but focus ... focus ... focus on things that could be done quickly 3. The IESG has also been realizing that the process of problem statement/use cases/requirements/architecture/protocol takes way too long for the industry. 4. If a great architecture document to rule all autonomic functions would have been easy, it would been done already. In NMRG for example, which had plenty of time to think about it! So an architecture as a starting point is not the right approach. 5. A WG can always be re-chartered in future phases These are the reasons why Joel and I asked the BoF chairs to lead a charter discussion, focusing on only 2 use cases Notably, adoption of a solution (discovery+negotiation protocol) before adoption of use cases seems like putting cart before the horse. Valid point. Regards, Benoit It is not also clear to me how well the suitability of the solution has been evaluated. For implementation of some autonomic, distributed algorithms, point-to-point negotiation protocol such as the suggested solution is far from optimal. In case of homenet, we moved from hierarchical DHCPv6 PD (point-to-point hierarchy) to a distributed algorithm (draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment*) which was result of over two years of draft updates, academic proving of correctness etc. Also, while dropping homenet from list of target things is _a_ way to solve the conflict that we already have autonomic solution for that particular problem which works (it was mentioned there before in e.g. IETF 90 not-quite-WG-forming BoF), even better would be to have a general solution that _also_ works in a homenet. Especially as IoT is just specialized type of homenet, I assume, although it is covered only by one mention in the whole charter (and the rest does not seem very IoT oriented). Looking at the solutions, from homenet developer / draft writer point of view, I would welcome a general trust bootstrapping framework. I am not convinced by the current solution draft for that (it assumes too many components for a home network case at least). A lot of the other things seem somewhat enterprise-y (control plane with IPsec, own routing protocol and ULAs? Not in IoT device at least, nor probably in constrained homenet router), or just unsuitable, such as the negotiation protocol that does not seem like a good fit for distributed decision making which is usually the key thing in autonomic networking. Cheers, -Markus . ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
On 02/10/2014 09:27, Steven Barth wrote: > >> Except that homenet has a limited scope and is well advanced >> in its work. > Still some of the essential underlying problems are the same and I think > you should not discard the progress in this working group all too > quickly. Instead adopting concepts and ideas from homenet could very > much benefit ANIMA. The underlying problems of "state synchronization" > or "negotiation" are the same. Sure we've already built something on top > of that but why not look at the foundation. > > >> Not really. The details are all to be discussed of course, but >> the concept is fundamental to autonomics: devices talk to each >> other rather than receiving instructions from above. (As Rene >> Struik has pointed out, there is another way to look at it, >> state synchronization, but that's largely a difference of >> terminology.) > Well I think your statement is a bit premature here. Yes, a negotiation > protocol is certainly necessary. > However even superficially comparing > draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol with draft-ietf-homenet-hncp > shows that the problem can be tackled by completely different approaches > and it would surprise me if these were the only ways to do it. Plus I > can't really tell from a first quick look at it which of these > approaches is more generic than the other. Perhaps we should try to > compare both and see what could be improved in either variant or maybe > find another variant which combines the best of both worlds? I quite agree. We will be updating the config-negotiation-protocol draft but I think there is a lot to learn from HNCP. I hope the words in the charter don't imply otherwise. Brian > > > Cheers, > > Steven > ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
Except that homenet has a limited scope and is well advanced in its work. Still some of the essential underlying problems are the same and I think you should not discard the progress in this working group all too quickly. Instead adopting concepts and ideas from homenet could very much benefit ANIMA. The underlying problems of "state synchronization" or "negotiation" are the same. Sure we've already built something on top of that but why not look at the foundation. Not really. The details are all to be discussed of course, but the concept is fundamental to autonomics: devices talk to each other rather than receiving instructions from above. (As Rene Struik has pointed out, there is another way to look at it, state synchronization, but that's largely a difference of terminology.) Well I think your statement is a bit premature here. Yes, a negotiation protocol is certainly necessary. However even superficially comparing draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol with draft-ietf-homenet-hncp shows that the problem can be tackled by completely different approaches and it would surprise me if these were the only ways to do it. Plus I can't really tell from a first quick look at it which of these approaches is more generic than the other. Perhaps we should try to compare both and see what could be improved in either variant or maybe find another variant which combines the best of both worlds? Cheers, Steven ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
Pierre, On 02/10/2014 02:58, Pierre Pfister wrote: > Hello Benoit, > > Looks like ANIMA’s goals are quite similar to Homenet’s > indeed. Except that homenet has a limited scope and is well advanced in its work. > Please allow me to comment the charter. > > 1. Why would you put the ‘negociation protocol’ in the > charter (even last call in the milestones !) ? It seems fair > to me that discussions about what should be the approach and > solution happen after the WG creation, isn’t it ? Not really. The details are all to be discussed of course, but the concept is fundamental to autonomics: devices talk to each other rather than receiving instructions from above. (As Rene Struik has pointed out, there is another way to look at it, state synchronization, but that's largely a difference of terminology.) > > 2. "A solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management within > a network." -> Please have a look to HNCP > (draft-ietf-homenet-hncp) + Prefix Assignment Algorithm > (draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignement). Ha, and we have > running open-source code for all this as well: > https://github.com/sbyx/hnetd. Yes, in the homenet context. It's a bit different in the carrier context. What we are really after is a general mechanism for the future. If we miss the homenet boat, that's our fault for starting late. There is a lot to learn from homenet, in my opinion. > > 3. "A solution for always-on, data plane independent > connectivity between network elements (i.e., stable in the > case of mis-configurations)." Sure the ‘data plane > independent’ makes it a little bit more buzzy. But in the end > this pretty much looks like the problem routing protocols are > made to solve (The 'mis-configurations’ part is more about > point 2.). Yes, for the problem that routing protocols solve, they do a good job. But we are talking about all the problems that routing protocols don't solve. Brian > > > Regards, > > - Pierre > > > Le 1 oct. 2014 à 15:20, Benoit Claise a > écrit : > >> Dear all, >> >> Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having >> an ANIMA WG: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and >> Approach This is now a proposed charter, under >> consideration by the IESG. This is your chance to provide >> feedback on http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/charter/ >> Note also that a BoF has been requested, just in case. >> Since HOMENET was mentioned during the UCAN BoF, I thought >> of double-checking with you guys. >> >> Regards, Benoit >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ homenet >> mailing list homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > > > > ___ homenet > mailing list homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
On 1.10.2014, at 16.20, Benoit Claise wrote: > Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having an ANIMA WG: > Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach > This is now a proposed charter, under consideration by the IESG. > This is your chance to provide feedback on > http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/charter/ > Note also that a BoF has been requested, just in case. > Since HOMENET was mentioned during the UCAN BoF, I thought of double-checking > with you guys. TL;DR: Please either add homenet (and solutions already in the WG) to the WG goals, or drop IoT too and just focus on enterprise. Looking at the milestones, I am very curious about lack of requirements or architecture work before promoting solutions and even WGLCing them. Notably, adoption of a solution (discovery+negotiation protocol) before adoption of use cases seems like putting cart before the horse. It is not also clear to me how well the suitability of the solution has been evaluated. For implementation of some autonomic, distributed algorithms, point-to-point negotiation protocol such as the suggested solution is far from optimal. In case of homenet, we moved from hierarchical DHCPv6 PD (point-to-point hierarchy) to a distributed algorithm (draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment*) which was result of over two years of draft updates, academic proving of correctness etc. Also, while dropping homenet from list of target things is _a_ way to solve the conflict that we already have autonomic solution for that particular problem which works (it was mentioned there before in e.g. IETF 90 not-quite-WG-forming BoF), even better would be to have a general solution that _also_ works in a homenet. Especially as IoT is just specialized type of homenet, I assume, although it is covered only by one mention in the whole charter (and the rest does not seem very IoT oriented). Looking at the solutions, from homenet developer / draft writer point of view, I would welcome a general trust bootstrapping framework. I am not convinced by the current solution draft for that (it assumes too many components for a home network case at least). A lot of the other things seem somewhat enterprise-y (control plane with IPsec, own routing protocol and ULAs? Not in IoT device at least, nor probably in constrained homenet router), or just unsuitable, such as the negotiation protocol that does not seem like a good fit for distributed decision making which is usually the key thing in autonomic networking. Cheers, -Markus ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
Hello Benoit, Looks like ANIMA’s goals are quite similar to Homenet’s indeed. Please allow me to comment the charter. 1. Why would you put the ‘negociation protocol’ in the charter (even last call in the milestones !) ? It seems fair to me that discussions about what should be the approach and solution happen after the WG creation, isn’t it ? 2. "A solution for distributed IPv6 prefix management within a network." -> Please have a look to HNCP (draft-ietf-homenet-hncp) + Prefix Assignment Algorithm (draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignement). Ha, and we have running open-source code for all this as well: https://github.com/sbyx/hnetd. 3. "A solution for always-on, data plane independent connectivity between network elements (i.e., stable in the case of mis-configurations)." Sure the ‘data plane independent’ makes it a little bit more buzzy. But in the end this pretty much looks like the problem routing protocols are made to solve (The 'mis-configurations’ part is more about point 2.). Regards, - Pierre Le 1 oct. 2014 à 15:20, Benoit Claise a écrit : > Dear all, > > Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having an ANIMA WG: > Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach > This is now a proposed charter, under consideration by the IESG. > This is your chance to provide feedback on > http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/charter/ > Note also that a BoF has been requested, just in case. > Since HOMENET was mentioned during the UCAN BoF, I thought of double-checking > with you guys. > > Regards, Benoit > > > > > > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] Homenet feedback on the ANIMA charter
Dear all, Based on the previous UCAN BoF, we are considering having an ANIMA WG: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach This is now a proposed charter, under consideration by the IESG. This is your chance to provide feedback on http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/charter/ Note also that a BoF has been requested, just in case. Since HOMENET was mentioned during the UCAN BoF, I thought of double-checking with you guys. Regards, Benoit ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
