Subject: Re: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group

From: Maxim Klyus <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 10:14:04 +0000

Hi Peng,

Ok. I got your point.
I just want to repeat my proposal was based on assumption we discussing vpn in "service" context.
And I agree it's important to define what exactly could be the part of "service" context in l3sm.
May be qos and traffic policy already the part of the vpn in "service" context, so it was clarification from my side - if service integrity parameter can be the part...

Best Regards,
Maxim

-----Original Message-----
From: Fan, Peng [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:49 AM
To: Maxim Klyus
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group

Hi Maxim,

If we are talking about service integrity, can we separate service integrity process from service model mapping process and handle it by some dedicated systems like OSS/BSS? So that service orchestrator is released from too many functions.

Best regards,
Peng

2015-04-29 19:06 GMT+08:00, Maxim Klyus <[email-masked]>:
> Hi Peng,
>
> If we talking about VPN in service context should we concern about
> service integrity aspects?
> When I'm going to visit restaurant may be I will concern about service
> quality. But I can't buy service quality itself without service context.
> If I'm asking to cook me some VPN it should be well done.  And "well done"
> in this case will be actually the set of very specific technical
> parameters of VPN components.
> As I said may be "SLA" terminology confusing you but it could be
> changed to service integrity.
> Actually I'm not insisting service integrity check should be part of
> the model, but I personally don't think it can be totally decoupled
> from service concept.
> If we decoupling service integrity in total I have a question - How
> does service integrity will be managed?
>
> Best Regards,
> Maxim Klyus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: L3sm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Fan, Peng
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:46 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group
>
> Hi,
>
> IMO SLA is more about business contract with customers, e.g.
> performance guarantee, response time, etc., than about technology itself.
> Since L3SM is chartered to defining service model that helps with
> configuration of service and network element, it is not clear why SLA
> should be part of it.
>
> Best regards,
> Peng
>
>
>> 发件人: Maxim Klyus [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> 发送时间: 2015年4月27日 20:41
>> 收件人: Maxim Klyus; Qin Wu; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> 主题: RE: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group
>>
>>
>>
>> My apologies,
>>
>>
>>
>> Small correction:
>>
>>
>>
>> -          Error-Disabled – service have to many errors and seems to be
>> disabled (Administrative Status State = Disabled)
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Maxim Klyus
>>
>>
>>
>> From: L3sm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Maxim Klyus
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:32 PM
>> To: Qin Wu; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]
>> Subject: Re: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group
>>
>>
>>
>> Qin and all,
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>“How does the customer know service status before service model is
>>>>>fed  into service orchestrator? “
>>
>>
>>
>> Service customer portal like an example: Customer making order and he
>> can see service status changed to Planned, deployment in progress,
>> etc…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>“Is there any difference between service status and cfg&ops state?
>>>>>“
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> After all discussions my current proposal to divide Status in 2 leaves:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1)    Administrative Status – Life Cycle Management and Configuration
>> (this
>> states more related to service operator but can be used by subscriber
>> also)
>>
>> States:
>>
>> -          Planned – service planed, service configuration prepared,
>> resources temporary allocated and reserved (Operational States =
>> Inactive)
>>
>> -          Enabled – service enabled, service configuration applied to
>> service components (Operational States = Active / Error)
>>
>>
>>
>> -          Disabled – service disabled administratively, key service
>> components disabled but resources still allocated to service, service
>> configuration changed (Operational States = Inactive/Error-Disabled)
>>
>> -          Partly – Suspended – service partly disabled administratively,
>> some of the key service components disabled but will be enabled
>> later, service configuration changed (Operational States = Active /
>> Error)
>>
>>
>>
>> If we reviewing VPN service from configuration side, but not like
>> service object side we can stay only Disabled/Suspended, but we need
>> add to the model parameter: Service Configuration Revision. So we
>> able to track when last changes occurred for service and what
>> actually were changed.
>>
>> Because right now I can see “rw-id” in the model and I guess it is
>> Service Id but not service configuration revision id.
>>
>> Why it could be important to know if service Suspended or Partly –
>> Suspended? For operator it could be important from the resource
>> allocation side because service changed but it may be still needs
>> temporary disabled resources (except service modification case when
>> resources disconnected in
>> total) and subscriber just would like to know such kind of
>> information obviously.
>>
>>
>>
>> -          Disconnected - service  disconnected, configuration removed
>> from
>> the service components and saved for history and resources are free
>> now (Operational States = Inactive)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2)    Operational Status – Service operational states (this states
>> related
>> to both – customer and service operator)
>>
>> States:
>>
>> -          Active – service is active (Administrative Status State =
>> Partly-Suspended / Enabled)
>>
>> -          Error – service still active but have some errors
>> (Administrative
>> Status State = Partly-Suspended / Enabled)
>>
>> -          Error-Disabled – service have to many errors and seems to be
>> disabled (Administrative Status State = Disabled/Partly-Suspended /
>> Enabled)
>>
>> -          Inactive – service is inactive because (Administrative Status
>> State = Planned/Disabled/Disconnected)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Previously I proposed to add Status for VPN service components to be
>> able to do service integrity check, but after our very useful
>> discussion I’m not sure it will be necessary, because we can see
>> service integrity decision can be unique per service basis and very
>> complicated, each service components can have many very specific
>> parameters for monitoring.
>>
>> Also as you said independent OAM model already exists, but right now
>> it is more related to Delay parameter only and we should have several
>> OAM instances per one service.
>>
>> However service integrity decision can be much more complicated like
>> specific decision policy which includes sets of different OAM
>> instances related to different components and some set of conditions
>> related to SLA.
>>
>>
>>
>> Considering all the above, my proposal instead of defining Status for
>> VPN Components just provide only one additional parameter in model –
>> SLA-Policy parameter it will be reference to some complicated SLA
>> decision policy which out of scope of this draft. But I just think it
>> will be useful to have such possibility in model, even considering
>> ietf don’t have any defined sla-decision-policy, any service operator
>> can use such parameter for internal (custom) SLA decision process
>> implementation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Max Klyus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Qin Wu [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 4:44 AM
>> To: [email-masked]; Maxim Klyus; [email-masked];
>> [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group
>>
>>
>>
>> Maxim:
>>
>> Speaking as individual (without co-chair’s hat).
>>
>> How does the customer know service status before service model is fed
>> into service orchestrator?
>>
>> Is there any difference between service status and cfg&ops state?
>>
>>
>>
>> I can understand we need a process to map service model onto network
>> element YANG model?
>>
>> Do we need another process to get cfg&state from network element
>> model after configurations are applied and the network is running and
>> **map
>> back** to service model?
>>
>> Is this your proposal to establish mapping between cfg&ops state in
>> the network element model and service status in the service model?
>>
>> What's the benefit to have such mapping if my understanding is
>> correct and this is your proposal?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Qin
>>
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: L3sm [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表
>> [email-masked]
>> 发送时间: 2015年4月24日 19:22
>> 收件人: Maxim Klyus; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>> 主题: Re: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding ops state, there is a discussion on going for device config
>> related model on how it should be handled.
>>
>> There is the idea of having the same tree or same tree structure for
>> cfg & ops state, so it would be possible to compare what has been
>> configured and what is really used by the device.
>>
>> In term of service model, I'm wondering if this is still applicable
>> or not ?
>> or we could just use some status leaves as you propose.
>>
>> Do you see other kind of operational states rather than the status ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: L3sm [ <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Maxim Klyus
>>
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 21:02
>>
>> To:  <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked];
>> <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
>>
>> Subject: Re: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello, L3SM and Adrian.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if below information should be forwarded to
>> draft-l3vpn-service-yang mail-list.
>>
>>
>>
>> But here is my objection for contribution and discussion in L3SM WG
>> from NetCracker side.
>>
>>
>>
>> imho  STATUS parameter - one of the forgotten things in current l3vpn
>> service yang model and it is not related to equipment configuration
>> directly.
>>
>> As far as we are talking about services, Service Status need to be
>> defined for L3VPN service itself, L3VPN Service Components and L3VPN
>> Service Parts(?).
>>
>>
>>
>> Status parameter is very important thing for service management and
>> service integrity / SLA monitoring and troubleshooting.
>>
>>
>>
>> L3VPN Service can have following basic statuses:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Planed(?) - configuration is ready to use but not applied to the
>> equipment
>>
>> 2) Active - all service components have Active operational status
>> without errors
>>
>> 3) Active-Error - Error/Disabled state for some of the service
>> components
>>
>> 4) Suspended - service administratively stopped
>>
>> 5) Active-Suspended - part of the service administratively disabled
>>
>> 6) Disconnected(?) - service configuration removed from the equipment
>>
>>
>>
>> Service Component can have following basic statuses:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Active - all related process and components have Active
>> operational status without errors
>>
>> 2) Active-Error - internal errors (interface overload/errors,
>> protocol errors, routing tables overload...etc) or related components
>> errors
>>
>> 2) Disabled - administratively disabled
>>
>> 3) Error-Disabled - Component Error (error-disabled interface,
>> error-disabled protocol process, error-disabled related
>> component...etc)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Service Component can have reference to other Service Component.
>>
>>
>>
>> In some cases L3VPN Service can be decomposed to Service parts. Like
>> an example can be HUB&Spoke topology.
>>
>> Each Spoke side or HUB side can be defined like Service Part.
>>
>> Service part(?) - set of the components, can be additional
>> abstraction for management and monitoring convenience purpose.
>>
>>
>>
>> Service Part(?) can have following basic statuses:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Planed(?) - configuration is ready to use but not applied to the
>> equipment
>>
>> 1) Active - all service components have Active operational status
>> without errors
>>
>> 2) Active-Error - Error/Disabled state for some of the mandatory
>> service components
>>
>> 2) Suspended - service administratively stopped
>>
>> 3) Disconnected(?) - service configuration removed from the equipment
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Overall structure example:
>>
>>
>>
>> Service
>>
>> +--Service Status
>>
>> +--Service Part                                     Reference
>>
>>        +-- Service Part Status                       String
>>
>>        +-- Service Component                         Reference
>>
>>               +-- Service Component Status           String
>>
>>               +-- Service Component                  Reference
>>
>>                     +-- Service Component Status     String
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> L3VPN Service structure example:
>>
>>
>>
>> module: ietf-l3vpn-svc
>>
>>       +--rw l3vpn-svc
>>
>>          +--rw  l3vpn-status
>>     String
>>
>>          +--rw sites* [site-id]
>>
>>               +--rw site-status
>>     String
>>
>>               +--rw attachment
>>
>>               |  +--rw apply-template?
>>     leafref
>>
>>                   +--rw bearer
>>
>>                   |    +--rw bearer status
>>     String
>>
>>                   +--rw connection
>>
>>                          +--rw connection-status
>>
>>                                +--rw routing-protocols* [type]
>>
>>                                      +--rw ospf
>>
>>                                      |     +--rw ospf-protocol-status
>>     String
>>
>>                                      +---rw bgp
>>
>>                                              +--rw bgp-protocol-status
>>     String
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If anybody has any comments or objections, I'm ready to discuss.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Maxim Klyus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> From: L3sm [[email-masked]] on behalf of Adrian Farrel
>> [[email-masked]]
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:26 PM
>>
>> To:  <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
>>
>> Subject: [L3sm] Welcome to the working group
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi L3SM,
>>
>>
>>
>> Setting up the working group has moved pretty fast, and Qin and I
>> have only just found out we are your chairs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we ask for a little time to get our act together and work out how
>> the WG should progress towards its milestone.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the meantime, it would be really helpful if you could send your
>> comments on draft-l3vpn-service-yang to the mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have your own draft in this area, the best approach would be
>> to look at draft-l3vpn-service-yang and see what you would change or
>> add to that draft, then send your comments to the mailing list. Don't
>> forget that we are strictly limited by what is in our charter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> L3sm mailing list
>>
>>  <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
>>
>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or
>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,
>> proprietary and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
>> dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
>> upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended
>> recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
>> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> L3sm mailing list
>>
>>  <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
>>
>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _ ___________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
>> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
>> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
>> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
>> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>>
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>>
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> L3sm mailing list
>>
>>  <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
>>
>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm
>>
>>
>>
>>   _____
>>
>> The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or
>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,
>> proprietary and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
>> dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
>> upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended
>> recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
>> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>   _____
>>
>> The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or
>> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,
>> proprietary and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
>> dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
>> upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended
>> recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
>> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,
> proprietary and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
> dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
> upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
> the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>

________________________________
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.