Subject: [Actn] ACTN London meeting notes

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:15:14 +0000

Hi all,

Here's a bit late, but a fist cut rough meeting notes gathered from several folks. Please feel free to comment and/or correct as you wish.

Thanks.
Young

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTN Side Meeting Notes:

Date of Meeting: March 6, 2014.

Attendees: There were 45 attendees who came from a diversity of affiliations.

*         Carriers/Content Providers: AT&T, Microsoft, KDDI, Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom, Telefonica.

*         Vendors: Ericsson, Huawei, Cisco, Juniper, ALU, NSN, Coriant, Networkmining, HP, NSN, Fujitsu, ADVA, Ciena, NEC, Infinera.

*         Research/University: CTTC, CATR, ETRI, Ghent University, Hochschule Darmstatt, iMinds

Agenda

1, Introduction by Young Lee (Huawei)
2, Problem statement by Dan King (Lancaster University)
3, ACTN Framework, Daniele Caccerelli (Ericsson)
4, ACTN Use-cases, Luyuan Fang (Microsoft)
5, Draft Charter (All)

Discussion Points

*         There was a clear support for this work from the floor. No one expressed their objection for this work. About two-third of the attendees expressed that they would support this work and about a half of the attendees expressed that they will contribute.

*         Carriers/Content Providers (AT&T, Microsoft) expressed their general support for network abstraction and coordination for both their internal interfaces coordination across multi-domain as well as external interfaces with other carriers.

o   The need for hierarchical controller coordination and abstraction needs are expressed for scalability.

o   The need for standard interface is required to get around different vendor-proprietary implementations.

o   Operators have this problem internally. Between operators you end up with more business issues - but that's their commercial decision. Even internally abstraction is a good thing!

o   While internal interfaces share everything, external interfaces can exchange capability information, B/W, etc., which current VPN is not addressing.

*         Charter appears too wide. There is some duplication with other SDOs and as such the charter needs to carve out to have a clear/narrowed scope. Terminology needs to be clarified to avoid confusion.

o   On suggestion was to map it to SDN/NFV; make it small and let them figure out how to use. Both SDN/NFV have needs for this kind of abstraction mechanism.

o   There are other groups such as TMF/NFV that might be interested in service definition.

o   Clearly sort it out the scope within and outside of IETF. There are some related modeling works from G.803, 805, 809 and TMF's MTOSI work.

*         Some technical questions

o   What interfaces are being standardized? Why?

o   How do the GMPLS efforts differ from this?

o   Who is the actor that generates abstraction topology?

*         Comment from the Chair of IRTF VNRG (Virtual Network Research Group)

o   Try to find what are VN, requirements, properties. Tasked to explore what it is, between meeting nothing happened and thus closed. Diff naming scheme, addressing scheme, but some idea of virtualization, SDN were excluded and considered too big. Last meeting was in Quebec and discussion about openflow, forces.