Subject: [nmrg] Comments on autonomic use cases

From: Joe Marcus Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 10:55:46 -0500

After listening to the talks today, I have an overall comment related to 
network traceability in an autonomic environment.  I was very intrigued 
by Laurent's talk as I have been doing work in this area using Cisco 
embedded automation.  I strongly feel that we should be doing more 
autonomic cross-device analysis of problem conditions to do smart 
rerouting in the case of instability.  For example, in addition to local 
factors like temperature and load, we could look at path or hop 
stability in terms of dropped packets along a flow, jitter, latency, 
etc. and determine a new optimum/stable path.

Additionally, with respect to the troubleshooting section in 
draft-jiang-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-00, I think there is something that can 
be done autonomically relating to hardware failure.  Given Laurent's 
ideas again, a device that can detect imminent failure (e.g., SMART-like 
operations on harddrives), and make proactive changes to the network to 
reroute around an impending hardware failure until humans can get 
involved.  This can prevent extended outages.  Perhaps this is something 
that could supplement this section of text.

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 23:02:15 +1300

Hi Joe,

On 07/03/2014 04:55, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> rerouting in the case of instability.  

Yes; and not just instability. Other conditions like impending overload
could trigger action. (Always with appropriate damping to prevent
oscillation, of course.)

> For example, in addition to local

Thanks, yes. This is a case where more than one device may be involved
(which is why we're arguing that an east-west negotiation between devices
is needed).

     Brian

---

From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:15:58 +0000

Joe, 

I like your ideas. Why don't you write them up, either as a standalone use case, or with Laurent? It would be interesting to see a concrete example of such an autonomic behaviour, and deduce which type of interactions would be required. 

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmrg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke
> (jclarke)
> Sent: 06 March 2014 16:56
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [nmrg] Comments on autonomic use cases
> 
> network traceability in an autonomic environment.  I was very intrigued by
> Laurent's talk as I have been doing work in this area using Cisco embedded
> automation.  I strongly feel that we should be doing more autonomic cross-
> device analysis of problem conditions to do smart rerouting in the case of
> instability.  For example, in addition to local factors like temperature and
> load, we could look at path or hop stability in terms of dropped packets
> along a flow, jitter, latency, etc. and determine a new optimum/stable path.
> 
> Additionally, with respect to the troubleshooting section in draft-jiang-
> nmrg-an-gap-analysis-00, I think there is something that can be done
> autonomically relating to hardware failure.  Given Laurent's ideas again, a
> device that can detect imminent failure (e.g., SMART-like operations on
> harddrives), and make proactive changes to the network to reroute around
> an impending hardware failure until humans can get involved.  This can
> prevent extended outages.  Perhaps this is something that could
> supplement this section of text.
> 
> Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nmrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg

---

From: Joe Marcus Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 01:12:05 -0400

> I like your ideas. Why don't you write them up, either as a standalone use case, or with Laurent? It would be interesting to see a concrete example of such an autonomic behaviour, and deduce which…

Happy to.  Laurent is away, but when he returns, I'll see what we wants 
to do.

Joe