Subject: [dc] Work items for this group

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:15:25 -0500

Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> writes:

> So far it's been an impressively low traffic list for a cross area
> intersection of interests gearing up to discuss documents at an interim.

Fair point.

And with that, I'd like to start with a summary of the potential work
items that might be covered here. By "work items", I'd like to see a
grouping of IDs/presentations into (potential) work areas. The goal
would be to talk about each work area somewhat separately. If we
aren't able to organize work into mostly self-contained areas (i.e.,
WGs), we'll never get anywhere.

So far, the ones I know of include:

NVO3
    draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01.txt
SDN
    draft-nadeau-sdn-problem-statement-01.txt

  Use Case/Examples:	
    draft-stiliadis-sdnp-framework-use-cases-01.txt
    draft-pan-sdn-bod-problem-statement-and-use-case-01.txt
    draft-pan-sdn-dc-problem-statement-and-use-cases-01.txt
    draft-mcdysan-sdnp-cloudbursting-usecase-00.txt
    
  Solutions/Approachs:
    draft-nadeau-sdn-framework-01.txt
    draft-marques-sdnp-flow-spec-00.txt
VPN4DC
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement-00

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bitar-datacenter-vpn-applicability-01
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-so-vpn4dc-00
    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-so-vdcs-01
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-vpn4dc-problem-statement-00
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ko-dsi-problem-statement-00
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-l3vpn-vpn4dc-interconnect-00
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-vpn4dc-protocol-gap-analysis-00
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zeng-vpn4dc-example-solution-00
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system-02

Are there others?

Thomas

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:29:51 -0600

Agree with Thomas' approach, thanks for the summary.

Here is also the link for VPN4DC slides which we discussed in Taipei.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/l3vpn-3.pdf

Luyuan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Narten
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 8:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [dc] Work items for this group
> 
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-l3vpn-vpn4dc-interconnect-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-vpn4dc-protocol-gap-analysis-
> 00
> _______________________________________________
> dc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:13:55 -0800

I thought the summary was a pretty good reading list, thanks.

joel

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:19:06 -0900

> Are there others?

There's the stuff on middlebox state transfer.  It came
out of the datacenter discussions and has been going forward
in the ops area, but at this point it's not really clear to
me that it's the best fit for ops.

Melinda

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:35:31 +0000

Since there are so much TCP state transition discussed in the middlebox state transfer drafts,  would Transport area be a better fit for this? 

Linda

> Melinda Shore
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 12:19 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dc] Work items for this group
>

---

From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:43:16 -0800

Greetings,

	It's one of those "not sure where it fits" things.  There is a lot of TCP state, but there is lots of other state as well.  

	Chris

--  
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:00:40 +0000

Thomas, 

Thanks for starting the list. 
There are several drafts in ARMD for Data Center. The first two drafts have been discussed at the 82nd IETF meeting in Taipei, therefore might not need to be discussed again at the DC Interim meeting. But they are very good documents in describing Data Center general architecture and address resolution issues in data centers, which people on this mail list should be interested in. 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karir-armd-datacenter-reference-arch/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karir-armd-statistics/

This draft hasn't been discussed yet due to scope issues.  Therefore, they are suited for DC Interim meeting.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shah-armd-arp-reduction/

Here is another draft in ARMD, which is interesting. 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-so-armd-vdcs-ar/

Here are a couple of drafts in TRILL targeted for the data center environment:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-edge/

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-encap/

There will be an ARMD draft on BCP for ARP/ND Scaling for Large Data Centers to be uploaded soon, which are relevant. 

Linda Dunbar

> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 7:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:43:07 -0900

> Since there are so much TCP state transition discussed in the middlebox state transfer drafts,  would Transport area be a better fit for this?

That's what I'm guessing at the moment, esp. since that's where
transport-layer middlebox-related work has been performed in the
past, but as far as I know nobody's talked with the transport
ADs about it yet.  I'm shooting to have a new framework document
out before the end of the month and maybe it could be used as
the basis for discussions with the transport folk.

Melinda

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:43:10 -0600

This takes us back to the dc list scope discussion.

Regarding ARMD, I thought Benson commended before: "if one wishes to
discuss ARMD issues, I suggest using the [email-masked] mailing list. But
there is much that is out of ARMD's scope, which might be more
appropriate for discussion on [email-masked] instead."

Are you suggesting a different approach? Or these new ARMD drafts are
out of scope of ARMD?
Same goes with the TRILL drafts...

If the scope of the dc list is to cover every topic in ietf related to
dc, regardless there is already WG or not, we have several more WGs to
pull in, I think we will have scale and focus issues.

Luyuan

> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 2:01 PM
> To: Thomas Narten; [email-masked]
> There are several drafts in ARMD for Data Center. The first two drafts
> have been discussed at the 82nd IETF meeting in Taipei, therefore
might
> not need to be discussed again at the DC Interim meeting. But they are
> very good documents in describing Data Center general architecture and
> address resolution issues in data centers, which people on this mail
> list should be interested in.
> 
> There will be an ARMD draft on BCP for ARP/ND Scaling for Large Data
> Centers to be uploaded soon, which are relevant.
> 
> Linda Dunbar
> 
> >     http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-so-vdcs-01
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-vpn4dc-problem-statement-

---

From: "Pat Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:43:58 -0800

Not a work item, but would it be helpful to have an overview of the IEEE 802.1 work for Data Center that is in progress or has recently completed? I could put something together if there is an interest.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dc] Work items for this group

Fair point.

NVO3

  Use Case/Examples:	
    
  Solutions/Approachs:

Are there others?

Thomas

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:55:41 -0500

Thomas and all,

Here are some additional drafts related to VPN4DC that you did not include in your list.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-so-armd-vdcs-ar/

Additional DC/Cloud related drafts I am aware of that cannot be categorized into the 3 initiatives (NVO3, SDN, VPN4DC).
1.http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-junsheng-opsawg-virtual-resource-management/
2. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yokota-opsawg-virtnw-service-management/
3. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel/
4. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shima-clouds-net-portability-reqs-and-models/
5. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shao-opsawg-cloud-service-broker/
6. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ko-dvn-problem-statement/
7. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-golovinsky-cloud-services-log-format/
8. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gu-opsawg-policies-migration-solution-survey/
9. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gu-opsa-policies-migration-00.txt
10. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khasnabish-cloud-industry-workitems-survey/
11. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khasnabish-cloud-sdo-survey/
12. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khasnabish-cloud-reference-framework/
13. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karavettil-vdcs-security-framework/

I am sure I have miss many more drafts. 

With this many drafts going all different directions, and having consolidated discussion on one mailing list, I am afraid we will be taking right pass each other.   

Best regards,
 
Ning So
Verizon Corporate Technology
(office) 972-729-7905
(Cell) 972-955-0914

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 7:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dc] Work items for this group

Fair point.

And with that, I'd like to start with a summary of the potential work items that might be covered here. By "work items", I'd like to see a grouping of IDs/presentations into (potential) work areas. The goal would be to talk about each work area somewhat separately. If we aren't able to organize work into mostly self-contained areas (i.e., WGs), we'll never get anywhere.

NVO3

  Use Case/Examples:	
    
  Solutions/Approachs:

Are there others?

Thomas

---

From: "Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:01:52 -0600

Is the whole SDN area in "scope" for the dc discussion? 

One could argue that the DC is one use case of the SDN scope, but I think 
SDN is much broader than this, with plenty non-DC driven use cases.

Dimitri

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:59:46 +0000

Very good suggestion. 

Linda

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Pat
> Thaler
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:44 PM
> Not a work item, but would it be helpful to have an overview of the
> IEEE 802.1 work for Data Center that is in progress or has recently
> completed? I could put something together if there is an interest.
> 
> Pat
>

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:09:03 +0000

LuYuan, 
 
I said that " .. might not need to be discussed again at the DC Interim meeting. But they are very good documents in describing Data Center general architecture and address resolution issues in data centers, which people on this mail list should be interested in"

Having said this, if this DC Interim meeting is intended for IETF across area discussion on Data Center networking, it might worth the time to bring up all data center related work in various IETF WGs. For example, the Mobile IP technologies which allow mobile devices to move anywhere can be valuable to data center network to allow VMs to be placed anywhere.

I assume it is up to ADs to decide what to be discussed at this DC Interim meeting when there are too many contributions. 

Linda   

> From: Luyuan Fang (lufang) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:43 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar; Thomas Narten; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [dc] Work items for this group
> 
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karir-armd-datacenter-
> reference-
> > arch/
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-trill-directory-
> assisted-
> > edge/
> >
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-trill-directory-
> assisted-
> > encap/
> >

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:09:47 +0000

I completely agree that SDN is much more broader than DC. 

Linda

> Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri)
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 2:02 PM

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:07:42 -0500

Responding to a bunch of messages...

As always, I think we should focus on *problems* here. This effort (I
assume)  is about starting new work and figuring out where to do it.

If work already has a home, we should be aware of it, but there is
presumably no reason for us to discuss it here.

This includes documents that are not formal WG documents, but clearly
relate to an existing WG.

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> writes:

> There's the stuff on middlebox state transfer.

Are you referring to sami, or something else? Can we get a draft list?
And/or pointers to recent WG sessions/presentations?

And if this is about TCP state transfer, then I would think TSV is the
right place to start, not here.

Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]> writes:

> There are several drafts in ARMD for Data Center.

Following up on Benson's original point, I think we should only be
talking about documents/problems that do not already have a home
elsewhere.

Which ARMD-related documents do not have a home in ARMD? And why not?

Ditto for the Trill documents (which I assume belong in Trill and not
here)

Finally, there are way too many drafts already.

What we absolutely need to do is:

1) organize around problem themes.

2) drill down on the problem.

And it is not reasonable to ask anyone to read all the drafts in this
space... That is part of the problem... With so many potential drafts,
its hard to get a big picture. But we need to understand the bigger
picture in order to figure out how to divide the problem space...

Thus, again, being able to articulate a problem statement in a few
paragraphs in clear language will be worth a lot of gold in this
group.

Thomas

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:36:17 -0600

Very much agree.
The focus here should be the problem space the right home for the items
have no home yet.
I think the general DC strategy discussion is also important. 

Yep, agree.

Luyuan

> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:15:53 -0600

Yes, Dimitri brought up a good point.

It seems to me only dc use case for SDN is relevant to the dc list. 
The question would be where the SDN general architecture discussion is
homed, I'm assume the current SDN list? Or may be AD would set a new
ietf SDN list?
If the entire SDN is on the dc list, that would need to change the dc
list scope far beyond dc.
The interim meeting would be a good place to discuss these.

Luyuan

> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:10 PM
> To: Stiliadis, Dimitrios (Dimitri); Thomas Narten; [email-masked]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement-
> > >     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ko-dsi-problem-statement-00
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-l3vpn-vpn4dc-interconnect-

---

From: Mohnish Anumala <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:26 -0800

That will be great.

Thanks,
--Mohnish

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:44 AM
To: Thomas Narten; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dc] Work items for this group

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dc] Work items for this group

Fair point.

NVO3

  Use Case/Examples:	
    
  Solutions/Approachs:

Are there others?

Thomas

---

From: Pedro Marques <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:16:56 -0800

Thomas,
Please add http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-sndp-l3vpn-schema-00
to the the list. It defines the northbound API to
orchestration/provision systems that can be used along with
draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system-03 (virtual network connectivity) and
draft-marques-sdnp-flow-spec-00 (inter-vpn traffic filtering). The 3
documents are part of the same solution but they address sub-problems
that are best treated independently, in my view.

thanks,
  Pedro.

---

From: AshwoodsmithPeter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:18:56 +0000

Pat if you want some material on .1aq or .1Qbp we can provide some overview stuff.

Peter Ashwood-Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mohnish Anumala
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:11 PM
To: Pat Thaler; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dc] Work items for this group

That will be great.

Thanks,
--Mohnish

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:44 AM
To: Thomas Narten; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dc] Work items for this group

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dc] Work items for this group

Fair point.

NVO3

  Use Case/Examples:	
    
  Solutions/Approachs:

Are there others?

Thomas