Subject: [OPSAWG] bof proposal review

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:02:39 -0400

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).

  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

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:45:13 -0700

On 10/4/16 8:02 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> 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.

thanks
joel

> (hopefully) common set of requirements and identifying possible
> protocol work. It is a non- wg forming.
>
> Regards, Marc.
>
> ===========
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 13:25:26 -0400

> 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.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 08:16:37 +1300

> and provisioning of network nodes,

Undoubtedly true. I would like to mention that this is clearly a target area
for autonomic networking too; in fact one of the Anima use cases is a subset
of this problem area. Not that I propose to derail the BOF with this comment,
but the word "centralised" in one of the draft names suggests a specific
approach and it may not be the only one. The model in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management is definitely
not centralised (apart from policy).

Regards
   Brian

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:21:36 -0400

On 5 Oct 2016, at 15:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> and
> of this problem area.

certainly to add anima in the conflict list so we can have anima people 
in the room to flesh out the overlap or not.

> Not that I propose to derail the BOF with this comment,

thanks for the notification.

Regards, Marc.