From bob.briscoe@bt.com Thu May 10 03:38:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253B421F8514 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 03:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C8RNSalwB+vv for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 03:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.99]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D428921F8512 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 03:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHR01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.40) by EVMHR68-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:38:53 +0100 Received: from dyw02134app01.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.249.13) by EVMHR01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:38:52 +0100 Received: from cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (147.149.196.177) by dyw02134app01.domain1.systemhost.net (10.35.25.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:38:48 +0100 Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1336646327977; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:38:47 +0100 Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.142.64.178]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id q4AAciDX021392; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:38:44 +0100 Message-ID: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:38:48 +0100 To: David Meyer From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Cc: SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:38:56 -0000 Dave, [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item for them under "Areas to work on". How about: * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable safety, security etc) * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, but for researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, without investigating whether others could do it better.] Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane to rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from distributed systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have evidence yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed systems theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding technologies.] Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues in Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought to identify that as a potential work-item. Bob At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html > >comments? > >--dmm >_______________________________________________ >SDNP mailing list >SDNP@lucidvision.com >http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Thu May 10 04:22:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A3E21F860F for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 04:22:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.146 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.902, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6W0unfPTmWkV for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 04:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFD721F860B for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 04:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4AB7SOK026790; Thu, 10 May 2012 16:37:29 +0530 Received: from 117.193.52.75 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 16:37:32 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <52929.117.193.52.75.1336648052.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:37:32 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: "Bob Briscoe" , "David Meyer" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4AB7SOK026790 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Cc: SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:22:55 -0000 Hi Dave, Bob, I could take a shot at coming up with the open issues list draft i...Things are going to get more complicated as we progress and i thought might as well attempt to get some tangibles in when things are relatively simpler...plus this will be a good way for me to get introduced better to the field. Initial pointers if any for this will also be most appreciated. Let me know. Sitaraman > Dave, > > [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] > > Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. > > The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet > item for them under "Areas to work on". How about: > > * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control > in hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them > (provable safety, security etc) > * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. > > [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, > but for researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of > the alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could > do, without investigating whether others could do it better.] > > Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: > > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. > > [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control > plane to rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles > from distributed systems for implementation"? This would be better > phrased as "aiming to allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I > don't think we have evidence yet that logical centralisation of > control results in faster evolution. Also, I don't think SDN is as > firmly based on accepted distributed systems theory as the more > thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding technologies.] > > > Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open > Issues in Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the > charter ought to identify that as a potential work-item. > > > > Bob > > At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >>http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html >> >>comments? >> >>--dmm >>_______________________________________________ >>SDNP mailing list >>SDNP@lucidvision.com >>http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp > > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design > > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From dmm@1-4-5.net Thu May 10 06:26:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5A321F8668 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 06:26:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.342 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.342 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.635, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8L-h+4W2eRri for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 06:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED57821F8665 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obcni5 with SMTP id ni5so2416190obc.13 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=L1LtAHYIDfc3AU2hi+59sKrJmvcoMV7s5PdzRihpDKQ=; b=V+ubw6rjIXg/qp9k1vPLYbSx1H/VCwblMGLtLIOfKpnwhiPeXmh+toI3DBa5xAs+SP OSkAHh1s9kvm15QWE7mWglVPLgw3tedtJ3tqzb2aanpTbOsu60owvq5dKEJi5AfDa4rT pL8epivPrkXnqnYIw+KGe7lfYXTK9XyYQPF0l8rm7LisxTCtLh294F9YQc3hpMgacp8d N6czBbRgvPjHBRfwi8eH6/i9aKV20RlrRxZ+jOmJ5gifubDC0BGYgr7gzhP23cmBpnbm PO6UFALCwYpidmpO8CbDocsMXn9bbtefDRXsT/r0iAlfFYMqLLK4si2bBnSaxrUXn0lR P+aw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.141.105 with SMTP id rn9mr5702589obb.61.1336656362111; Thu, 10 May 2012 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.67.202 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] In-Reply-To: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 06:26:02 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: Bob Briscoe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkBmz9R7Xn9qR7mgxWBZJ0aW9t1D24opZriw8O/mhtSgfVXbuzy4PxyNn5nY3eTnRAD1wO3 Cc: SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:26:03 -0000 Bob, Thanks for the thoughtful comments. A few comments in-line: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > Dave, > > [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] > > Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. > > The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item f= or > them under "Areas to work on". How about: > > * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in > hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable safe= ty, > security etc) > * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. I just added "Hybrid Models" under areas of interest. The points you mention fall under that. Let me know if that gets what you want. > > [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, but f= or > researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the > alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, with= out > investigating whether others could do it better.] > > Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: > > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. I didn't add this as it seems obvious that we would do that in any area we studied. > > [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane t= o > rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from distribute= d > systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to > allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have evidenc= e > yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. Done. I will just mention that if you look at the early work by Scott and Nick you'll see that they heavily leverage what they assert is mature work in the area of state distribution in the distributed systems community. > Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed system= s > theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding > technologies.] Again, I believe this thinking originates with early work in the area. > > > Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues i= n > Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought t= o > identify that as a potential work-item. Yep. I added a "Potential Work Items" section that contains this one. If folks have others let me know and I'll add them Again, thanks for the thoughtful comments. --dmm > > > > Bob > > > At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >> >> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html >> >> comments? >> >> --dmm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SDNP mailing list >> SDNP@lucidvision.com >> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0BT Innovate & Design From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Thu May 10 07:13:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CA321F8668 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:13:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xC7QG8CL-f6y for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22F521F865F for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460A92109B7C; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:13:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ob7EHHbsjacG; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eparra-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642D22109B79; Thu, 10 May 2012 10:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:13:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> To: Bob Briscoe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:13:15 -0000 On May 10, 2012:6:38 AM, at 6:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > Dave, >=20 > [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] >=20 > Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. >=20 > The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet = item for them under "Areas to work on". How about: >=20 > * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control = in hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable = safety, security etc) > * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. >=20 > [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, = but for researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the = alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, = without investigating whether others could do it better.] >=20 > Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: >=20 > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >=20 > [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control = plane to rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from = distributed systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as = "aiming to allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we = have evidence yet that logical centralisation of control results in = faster evolution. Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted = distributed systems theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed = routing & forwarding technologies.] >=20 >=20 > Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open = Issues in Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the = charter ought to identify that as a potential work-item. TOM: That is a great idea.=20 --Tom >=20 >=20 >=20 > Bob >=20 > At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html >>=20 >> comments? >>=20 >> --dmm >> _______________________________________________ >> SDNP mailing list >> SDNP@lucidvision.com >> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >=20 > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design=20 > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >=20 From lars@netapp.com Thu May 10 07:24:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD95B21F8670 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.63 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KRil3Vxtirp for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF5521F862A for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:24:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,565,1330934400"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="646733132" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2012 07:24:23 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.77.34]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q4AEOIiv007127 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.117]) by vmwexceht04-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.77.34]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:24:22 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: SDN IRTF list Thread-Topic: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman Thread-Index: AQHNLSVHEZjufzepPE6Y+ps+pFSYApbC1+0MgACxMICAAAMGAA== Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:24:21 +0000 Message-ID: <5C814A41-33DB-4EE6-9B17-081223FC2BC8@netapp.com> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.115] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7420376B-DA15-4BF1-ADA5-EA298FEA2743"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:24:37 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7420376B-DA15-4BF1-ADA5-EA298FEA2743 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, also feel free to make use of the wiki at = http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki. There is a section on = "Pages for Potential New IRTF Activities" where you can create an SDN = page, and you can obviously create other pages as you see fit. The "open research issues" item could for example be initially worked on = on the wiki, and when it's stabilized it could turn into an I-D. Lars= --Apple-Mail=_7420376B-DA15-4BF1-ADA5-EA298FEA2743 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDUxMDE0MjQwMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFI6k waZ+gxXGRsGdE4gssG7xFIRHMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAB037fL2 WYNNCjCafNPW3Lfds8DinQePRM9zqgFhbTNIt8aZRnpua5hkvLGLFSA8b48svNjg4EQaI3Jh1yL0 PkLmpRKmqa8Wm5oQRUF8JmFdEy31br0++WzC4+53fkD1K4+XqZyPV16b+p1Bz1/uJ2ijG7PsMPM6 SOwiz1yVDiS73nGv+q15bPOocug/7wLf0U+bNSVJIoeO07oxjv6DNt7br+0+z5wPWtX5O3+ne4mF Hbh+3sPeaYhhlAfO6T3KgmAM51jCZjrVuM/QrYiJgwXbk5x90X7w3PJHyX9fQjKUfZ7TPhEGp04d teSV84LtfBugzVKlALhEsqXi2OJfOjYAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_7420376B-DA15-4BF1-ADA5-EA298FEA2743-- From dmm@1-4-5.net Thu May 10 07:25:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A324821F865D for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.433 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.544, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qsEm9dz9zrVA for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F334E21F862A for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbmv11 with SMTP id v11so2204142vbm.13 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=bmhbuPVDgVZbM2Gv3h/pmWY+Sccso9/a43xa7rybzgQ=; b=AmvwcrHMpyhKTb+smUBK/GPNvpvtDTkmgXaKsnD0t28RMIhX3PlydoEq8nIc9i+tQW K3+BRXsba5UPTO4r+dw30cYb+n9bIo5oFgheXk8OdUfJp3ECLRkuNpZTCzEfWlBe9qDu h/MH32awNzPPEcZlmDtg5MdzVPZ38S1LhjI/TVwT+eodQ0buLL4D0mey+o01jjyJPwAb 3uU7segDAEQkUjA0xcRLDyKSDIBGHT685KzrlfgShaBJ1NCYXOmJpVH8lRufwyRwMfqe 9O1pv+LECVeE9jr5nIH2Oem25NZkSKpZnFA5SCghEUbweX39rizEhG/ZVZfH3+HUOyn+ lOBQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.90.175 with SMTP id bx15mr2258234vdb.31.1336659946253; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.240 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] In-Reply-To: <5C814A41-33DB-4EE6-9B17-081223FC2BC8@netapp.com> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <5C814A41-33DB-4EE6-9B17-081223FC2BC8@netapp.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:25:46 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: "Eggert, Lars" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnDIw32Lp3tffj0VndHIK2s6Q+xiHN/1mJVLEuuCLWJviWXQ52oPa0lJD7QLhv41JOLRkur Cc: SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:25:47 -0000 Thanks Lars, will do... ---dmm On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, > > also feel free to make use of the wiki at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki. There is a section on "Pages for Potential New IRTF Activities" where you can create an SDN page, and you can obviously create other pages as you see fit. > > The "open research issues" item could for example be initially worked on on the wiki, and when it's stabilized it could turn into an I-D. > > Lars > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > From dmm@1-4-5.net Thu May 10 07:43:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D2D21F86AD for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.476, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qH+O8DQm0vp for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A9A21F86A7 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbmv11 with SMTP id v11so2228808vbm.13 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:43:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=lqNbRrDnpIFMvBnUpCs1qBpPQRh27qXIN6hj+KckfA4=; b=ExojImBMyIp0me1eFKSv1N9roCkLIs6B28nDCo66avOgkawzuAkW/ObU4/teLwXivl eAEw98LTak72OatT4LBaqWah0RdFap159FVz/7nkGfU2Ijfcxq6y2rq6/2PbvfQb/QnP 8K4rm00aLa47kUjra2HGvQBT9uxMGCfgWDTXavcx044+Mz9fBPLW94R/r2e37B1chPVi e7+DvFFpcQzriDfWSg+Cl2jGqibLULOkf+VoB5P7/Q3T2Rjm8xCg+d5evSoE6o+WDbTJ mhEHDMwCx2iRxEXnWx7DvzBaXyA6lHMEpPSsb90q79/ec3fl0OKFgPgsg8u0Hgs//Uje /vsQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.68.106 with SMTP id v10mr2248547vdt.3.1336661024914; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.240 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:43:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: sdn@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLPpZP++ez7ISzFK1DP90OzcwwPJ2fZ5jn3SaP9Z9OzwjX6PuI7pkTwRrB4z6wzwN2CZ0N Subject: [Sdn] please add to the wiki X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:43:55 -0000 Folks, I updated the IRTF pages with an SDNRG page. See http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/sdnrg. Please add whatever thoughts you have there. Thnx, --dmm From Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Thu May 10 08:56:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2F921F86D5 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eziGsPkEM2gs for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [58.251.152.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C969021F8672 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M3T00LHWDN0IP@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for sdn@irtf.org; Thu, 10 May 2012 23:57:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M3T003QIDMRI9@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for sdn@irtf.org; Thu, 10 May 2012 23:57:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AIY93132; Thu, 10 May 2012 23:56:51 +0800 Received: from SZXEML438-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.73) by szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 10 May 2012 23:56:32 +0800 Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.48]) by szxeml438-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.73]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 10 May 2012 23:56:33 +0800 Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:56:33 +0000 From: Tina TSOU In-reply-to: To: David Meyer Message-id: <690E9A8B-E273-4003-8298-0D3EF2FA99BB@huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman Thread-index: AQHNLplUNeYvVNHzhk6lGhC+199YYZbCfZQAgACwK8I= X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Cc: SDN IRTF list , Bob Briscoe Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:56:56 -0000 Dave, Regarding the hybrid model, perhaps we have to figure out what the supplement work to ONF hybrid WG. Sent from my iPad On May 10, 2012, at 6:26 AM, "David Meyer" wrote: > Bob, > > Thanks for the thoughtful comments. A few comments in-line: > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: >> Dave, >> >> [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] >> >> Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. >> >> The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item for >> them under "Areas to work on". How about: >> >> * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in >> hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable safety, >> security etc) >> * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. > > I just added "Hybrid Models" under areas of interest. The points you > mention fall under that. Let me know if that gets what you want. > >> >> [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, but for >> researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the >> alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, without >> investigating whether others could do it better.] >> >> Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: >> >> * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. > > I didn't add this as it seems obvious that we would do that in any > area we studied. > >> >> [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane to >> rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from distributed >> systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to >> allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have evidence >> yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. > > Done. I will just mention that if you look at the early work by Scott > and Nick you'll see that they heavily leverage what they assert is > mature work in the area of state distribution in the distributed > systems community. > >> Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed systems >> theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding >> technologies.] > > Again, I believe this thinking originates with early work in the area. > >> >> >> Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues in >> Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought to >> identify that as a potential work-item. > > Yep. I added a "Potential Work Items" section that contains this one. > If folks have others let me know and I'll add them > > Again, thanks for the thoughtful comments. > > --dmm > >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >>> >>> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html >>> >>> comments? >>> >>> --dmm >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SDNP mailing list >>> SDNP@lucidvision.com >>> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________ >> Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn From dmm@1-4-5.net Thu May 10 09:01:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FF821F8645 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.423, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bUBpoPRqf3a2 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A06E21F84DF for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcsg15 with SMTP id g15so1613677qcs.13 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:01:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=dndlBYIrdejyO6RoDfZRecD9mEfkzyksHwvJ6+/GQgs=; b=So161FubwNfXM/ypfuwx0xwNgF3FFGniiuBYqWcjytR7xD3HZeqr8pn02LYDuXM9/I VqFMHiAehjDgwsWed+Mtb1Epdid8TWmhKBw6kyidSG3Z29qKDecwojmVMM+8/AS/1srR iAYpUjtm+oHhu55CWvm7pZNBfrqn8KKe8631QbVjrpHMJglu55qTdIO+EKY3T815kgxD MhWhrP40TC1HlTV6NWPo7unjulFyZLZBd0xUJOunhPEo2dmHtUEHbLx98d8rW5vO8wJl albzavDMM0RvEEeCteCu2hDQevns1ui6CB5sLiGG4SmirTcu+ToPWyXva990FkZNpt9X lEZg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.179.69 with SMTP id bp5mr2952101vcb.67.1336665663477; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.240 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:01:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] In-Reply-To: <690E9A8B-E273-4003-8298-0D3EF2FA99BB@huawei.com> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <690E9A8B-E273-4003-8298-0D3EF2FA99BB@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 09:01:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: Tina TSOU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsrwMwxLMpaXfSEYkz+6i2VmOOvLQBsGRa8AEoVhEknJlGvpboNIGk4OM3EEvSjQhfVdV3 Cc: SDN IRTF list , Bob Briscoe Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:01:05 -0000 On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Tina TSOU w= rote: > Dave, > Regarding the hybrid model, perhaps we have to figure out what the supple= ment work to ONF hybrid WG. My sense is that the ONF is trying to build an architecture/standardize today's hybrid model(s), and the IRTF group would be more concerned with the longer term view. --dmm > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 10, 2012, at 6:26 AM, "David Meyer" wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> Thanks for the thoughtful comments. A few comments in-line: >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: >>> Dave, >>> >>> [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] >>> >>> Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. >>> >>> The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item= for >>> them under "Areas to work on". How about: >>> >>> * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in >>> hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable sa= fety, >>> security etc) >>> * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. >> >> I just added "Hybrid Models" under areas of interest. The points you >> mention fall under that. Let me know if that gets what you want. >> >>> >>> [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, but= for >>> researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the >>> alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, wi= thout >>> investigating whether others could do it better.] >>> >>> Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: >>> >>> * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >> >> I didn't add this as it seems obvious that we would do that in any >> area we studied. >> >>> >>> [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane= to >>> rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from distribu= ted >>> systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to >>> allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have evide= nce >>> yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. >> >> Done. I will just mention that if you look at the early work by Scott >> and Nick you'll see that they heavily leverage what they assert is >> mature work in the area of state distribution in the distributed >> systems community. >> >>> Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed syst= ems >>> theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwardi= ng >>> technologies.] >> >> Again, I believe this thinking originates with early work in the area. >> >>> >>> >>> Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues= in >>> Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought= to >>> identify that as a potential work-item. >> >> Yep. I added a "Potential Work Items" section that contains this one. >> If folks have others let me know and I'll add them >> >> Again, thanks for the thoughtful comments. >> >> --dmm >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html >>>> >>>> comments? >>>> >>>> --dmm >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SDNP mailing list >>>> SDNP@lucidvision.com >>>> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________ >>> Bob Briscoe, =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0BT Innovate & Design >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn From Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Thu May 10 09:19:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC0C21F86AD for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.927 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.432, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LR7QlVrvzMvf for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [58.251.152.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0E821F8638 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M3T00EP0EBTL9@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for sdn@irtf.org; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:11:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M3T00127EBTF5@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for sdn@irtf.org; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:11:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AIY93602; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:10:49 +0800 Received: from SZXEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) by szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:10:29 +0800 Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.48]) by szxeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.95]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 11 May 2012 00:10:44 +0800 Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:10:44 +0000 From: Tina TSOU In-reply-to: To: David Meyer Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman Thread-index: AQHNLplUNeYvVNHzhk6lGhC+199YYZbCfZQAgACwK8L//3slgIAAiNE2 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <690E9A8B-E273-4003-8298-0D3EF2FA99BB@huawei.com> Cc: SDN IRTF list , Bob Briscoe Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:19:14 -0000 Sent from my iPad On May 10, 2012, at 9:01 AM, "David Meyer" wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Tina TSOU wrote: >> Dave, >> Regarding the hybrid model, perhaps we have to figure out what the supplement work to ONF hybrid WG. > > My sense is that the ONF is trying to build an > architecture/standardize today's hybrid model(s), and the IRTF group > would be more concerned with the longer term view. Can we say SIN mode is short term, Integrated mode is long term? > > --dmm > >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 10, 2012, at 6:26 AM, "David Meyer" wrote: >> >>> Bob, >>> >>> Thanks for the thoughtful comments. A few comments in-line: >>> >>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: >>>> Dave, >>>> >>>> [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] >>>> >>>> Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. >>>> >>>> The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item for >>>> them under "Areas to work on". How about: >>>> >>>> * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in >>>> hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable safety, >>>> security etc) >>>> * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. >>> >>> I just added "Hybrid Models" under areas of interest. The points you >>> mention fall under that. Let me know if that gets what you want. >>> >>>> >>>> [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, but for >>>> researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the >>>> alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, without >>>> investigating whether others could do it better.] >>>> >>>> Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: >>>> >>>> * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >>> >>> I didn't add this as it seems obvious that we would do that in any >>> area we studied. >>> >>>> >>>> [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane to >>>> rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from distributed >>>> systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to >>>> allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have evidence >>>> yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. >>> >>> Done. I will just mention that if you look at the early work by Scott >>> and Nick you'll see that they heavily leverage what they assert is >>> mature work in the area of state distribution in the distributed >>> systems community. >>> >>>> Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed systems >>>> theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding >>>> technologies.] >>> >>> Again, I believe this thinking originates with early work in the area. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues in >>>> Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought to >>>> identify that as a potential work-item. >>> >>> Yep. I added a "Potential Work Items" section that contains this one. >>> If folks have others let me know and I'll add them >>> >>> Again, thanks for the thoughtful comments. >>> >>> --dmm >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>>> >>>> At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html >>>>> >>>>> comments? >>>>> >>>>> --dmm >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> SDNP mailing list >>>>> SDNP@lucidvision.com >>>>> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________________________________________ >>>> Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sdn mailing list >>> sdn@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Thu May 10 09:53:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494D021F8704 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:53:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QvpSSifVboPA for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C4121F8512 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB19210A197; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:53:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cRFMf9q098Cl; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:53:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sa-nc-common3-228.static.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9ED210A194; Thu, 10 May 2012 12:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: <690E9A8B-E273-4003-8298-0D3EF2FA99BB@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 12:53:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2E687090-C8E3-4202-A4D5-F9BCEE7AC9BE@lucidvision.com> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <690E9A8B-E273-4003-8298-0D3EF2FA99BB@huawei.com> To: Tina TSOU X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Bob Briscoe Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:53:47 -0000 I'd rather let the IRTF work exist independently of anything in = ONF. Again, the point of IRTF work is to be free to examine whatever = researchers are looking at around this area without being constrained by = any particular SDO's goals. If things feedback one way or another, that = is cool, but it shouldn't be a hard/fast requirement. --Tom On May 10, 2012:11:56 AM, at 11:56 AM, Tina TSOU wrote: > Dave, > Regarding the hybrid model, perhaps we have to figure out what the = supplement work to ONF hybrid WG. >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On May 10, 2012, at 6:26 AM, "David Meyer" wrote: >=20 >> Bob, >>=20 >> Thanks for the thoughtful comments. A few comments in-line: >>=20 >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe = wrote: >>> Dave, >>>=20 >>> [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] >>>=20 >>> Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g = charter. >>>=20 >>> The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet = item for >>> them under "Areas to work on". How about: >>>=20 >>> * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control = in >>> hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable = safety, >>> security etc) >>> * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. >>=20 >> I just added "Hybrid Models" under areas of interest. The points you >> mention fall under that. Let me know if that gets what you want. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, = but for >>> researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the >>> alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, = without >>> investigating whether others could do it better.] >>>=20 >>> Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: >>>=20 >>> * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >>=20 >> I didn't add this as it seems obvious that we would do that in any >> area we studied. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control = plane to >>> rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from = distributed >>> systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming = to >>> allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have = evidence >>> yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster = evolution. >>=20 >> Done. I will just mention that if you look at the early work by Scott >> and Nick you'll see that they heavily leverage what they assert is >> mature work in the area of state distribution in the distributed >> systems community. >>=20 >>> Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed = systems >>> theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & = forwarding >>> technologies.] >>=20 >> Again, I believe this thinking originates with early work in the = area. >>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open = Issues in >>> Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter = ought to >>> identify that as a potential work-item. >>=20 >> Yep. I added a "Potential Work Items" section that contains this one. >> If folks have others let me know and I'll add them >>=20 >> Again, thanks for the thoughtful comments. >>=20 >> --dmm >>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Bob >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html >>>>=20 >>>> comments? >>>>=20 >>>> --dmm >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SDNP mailing list >>>> SDNP@lucidvision.com >>>> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> ________________________________________________________________ >>> Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >=20 From dmm@1-4-5.net Thu May 10 09:58:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E050D21F860B for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.381, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YwCtUxTsHE-Y for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06E421F8603 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbmv11 with SMTP id v11so2410143vbm.13 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=gEjkS/CUAh8x69B21qi9tHQuQ6SOkS5pqrQBrDcQQ2c=; b=mNrlO5aNGoljvgfwDms4MRfs1R7XhYTVEOCjqJCeU4cNqpNywWIh81AFPmrBChCVT3 ZHCmc2nVAuAj2z8xgQQed4oIk14Vq2sG/Mu2Fyc20BKNlj81hOAFqCjPj239btTeb8Tu dHiXE2wz/nXJz35OhGGLaIy2gna847ntkHAUrSMo2/wqd1JArgt8urdPVPQ3iMug3lTw 2XnVn2BfSiPkyZoKw6ecj0J/sy3q+UJEk4nww/V5rVkoznmXPx6xcAjgRZZUSRi7dI5I 2sUieWSq+0yF166Ef7Cx1FnabctZPZLReMndsk4mOyBBa+7uRpI/0XIjCXYTY/ZXnx/N +1aA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.26.240 with SMTP id o16mr2286044vdg.20.1336669078884; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.240 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:57:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] In-Reply-To: <2E687090-C8E3-4202-A4D5-F9BCEE7AC9BE@lucidvision.com> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <690E9A8B-E273-4003-8298-0D3EF2FA99BB@huawei.com> <2E687090-C8E3-4202-A4D5-F9BCEE7AC9BE@lucidvision.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 09:57:58 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: Thomas Nadeau Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn1nWQwZ3Pxv4jtoKj1vAxb1S6AVP4zT016EsrMveTWHX6C2wg6JAPnVpZkFBKVr63NyIlP Cc: SDN IRTF list , Bob Briscoe , Tina TSOU Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:58:01 -0000 On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Thomas Nadeau wr= ote: > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I'd rather let the IRTF work exist independently of anythi= ng in ONF. Again, the point of IRTF work is to be free to examine whatever = researchers are looking at around this area without being constrained by an= y particular SDO's goals. =A0If things feedback one way or another, that is= cool, but it shouldn't be a hard/fast requirement. > Agreed. --dmm From lars@netapp.com Thu May 10 09:58:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730D121F860B for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.629 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gun14Xt3C9x2 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA65021F8603 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,565,1330934400"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="646783095" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2012 09:58:37 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q4AGwb8p017546; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.117]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 10 May 2012 09:58:37 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: Thomas Nadeau Thread-Topic: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman Thread-Index: AQHNLSVHEZjufzepPE6Y+ps+pFSYApbC1+0MgACkBACAACoOgIAAD/SAgAABXIA= Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:58:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <690E9A8B-E273-4003-8298-0D3EF2FA99BB@huawei.com> <2E687090-C8E3-4202-A4D5-F9BCEE7AC9BE@lucidvision.com> In-Reply-To: <2E687090-C8E3-4202-A4D5-F9BCEE7AC9BE@lucidvision.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.115] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_59B86D47-CF34-49C4-A74C-297B2F5B2037"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Bob Briscoe , Tina TSOU Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:58:38 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_59B86D47-CF34-49C4-A74C-297B2F5B2037 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 10, 2012, at 12:53, Thomas Nadeau wrote: > I'd rather let the IRTF work exist independently of anything in = ONF. Again, the point of IRTF work is to be free to examine whatever = researchers are looking at around this area without being constrained by = any particular SDO's goals. If things feedback one way or another, that = is cool, but it shouldn't be a hard/fast requirement. Agreed. Lars= --Apple-Mail=_59B86D47-CF34-49C4-A74C-297B2F5B2037 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDUxMDE2NTgzMlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFB7V iscNkiBFpPn1M4Q6V19n5i3rMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAGUoSliX wf5VXMo/E1e4Z/3Y21GvH2g6qg95mHPtRd62ZXeVxQT+5oSpLyoI7CgOBIrLQSjlEF+RRCnw5mmr P1jJLoq5zOjKuAeO04QADdk2bDjN/afVrNvtCWx+s/5w1RxmQAgMXuN15tw3k8K3ZEWQUU4MfcqC F1ZcBOecP0oH+hIlQKCuLndVMd7Ibz2CaWanxmut/9w7CU5t6q2IsuSI0NEO3qYq3JQzUHFAmHx8 bIzDEJdg50ObQ6BJS3q5pRvERl5aFURKkrdwcISYCNaa+Lasux/p4VVgcgVlQETuf6MlsItjtlgk 8wM2cBxnFC0LjNzbdDtvYUSkGgGVGzQAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_59B86D47-CF34-49C4-A74C-297B2F5B2037-- From bob.briscoe@bt.com Thu May 10 11:35:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A07921F85FF for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:35:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.684 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35pZ9aGvjW6G for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hubrelay-by-04.bt.com (hubrelay-by-04.bt.com [62.7.242.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EA721F86B3 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHR01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.40) by EVMHR04-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 10 May 2012 19:34:00 +0100 Received: from dyw02134app01.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.249.13) by EVMHR01-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.108.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 10 May 2012 19:34:04 +0100 Received: from cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (147.149.196.177) by dyw02134app01.domain1.systemhost.net (10.35.25.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Thu, 10 May 2012 19:34:04 +0100 Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1336674843682; Thu, 10 May 2012 19:34:03 +0100 Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.142.65.228]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id q4AIY1QH023907; Thu, 10 May 2012 19:34:02 +0100 Message-ID: <201205101834.q4AIY1QH023907@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 19:33:59 +0100 To: David Meyer From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Cc: SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:35:09 -0000 David, At 14:26 10/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >Bob, > >Thanks for the thoughtful comments. A few comments in-line: > >On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > > The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item for > > them under "Areas to work on". How about: > > > > * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in > > hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them > (provable safety, > > security etc) > > * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. > >I just added "Hybrid Models" under areas of interest. The points you >mention fall under that. Let me know if that gets what you want. Fine. > > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. > >I didn't add this as it seems obvious that we would do that in any >area we studied. Those currently making these assertions don't seem to find this obvious at all. I just figured we should be at pains to look objective, rather than looking as if we want the research to confirm the answer we would like to hear. > > [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane to > > rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from distributed > > systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to > > allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have evidence > > yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. > >Done. I will just mention that if you look at the early work by Scott >and Nick you'll see that they heavily leverage what they assert is >mature work in the area of state distribution in the distributed >systems community. Certainly, SDN re-uses fault tolerance and state distribution based on tried and tested distributed systems research. But that doesn't mean the SDN /system/ as a whole is backed up by years of accepted research - far from it. Even the state distribution part is only about whether the state sub-system /can/ always be made to become consistent. I'm not aware of any research into the dynamics when this sub-system interacts with demand - ie what levels of churn at scale would outrun an SDN system's ability to maintain state consistency, and whether such levels are likely in the real world. Whereas there's been loads of research into that for the distributed routing protocols. BTW, this is a good example of the need for research - no-one wants to find out about scale problems like this only when the mountain has reached such a scale that it has become very embarrassing (and very painful) to fall off the mountain. Bob > > Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed systems > > theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding > > technologies.] > >Again, I believe this thinking originates with early work in the area. > > > > > > > Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues in > > Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought to > > identify that as a potential work-item. > >Yep. I added a "Potential Work Items" section that contains this one. >If folks have others let me know and I'll add them > >Again, thanks for the thoughtful comments. > >--dmm > > > > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: > >> > >> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html > >> > >> comments? > >> > >> --dmm > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> SDNP mailing list > >> SDNP@lucidvision.com > >> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design >_______________________________________________ >sdn mailing list >sdn@irtf.org >https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design From dmm@1-4-5.net Thu May 10 11:36:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF4221F86B3 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:36:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ie43JkAsSC3z for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f182.google.com (mail-gg0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97B221F8603 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnm2 with SMTP id m2so1520642ggn.13 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=m2ITojVhnOU0nGj2SF+YA+XFwdk0r8VLuyUSbsUcQNE=; b=TH9xVisVOKIWZ6EonlbkT9BiuZGtkpD1uSj5XOEcK89mGc/18LonH8607/4eXfJOb3 wBW/oFmsKrvvOhjzn49BEkEPKXz8rp18vBWDBaRc6yvbKDEchJ1zcim2dN+CQCXaZYMU RKmDjBnqCmakTsinXHpnKbkx9sHeLNi+q9ZdAqDi0Oe37UX96t0gL39qldEb2Lq69wUK HaGk1V5LSWPyjXf6r7ybhSY8baHZDShxQ3MwR0jHPVQTtGk0LjLzkOvdfGKA3WmYfeC+ u6Rf/PBVF7MVvoUyQufuEOtlinr2yP1EumB1LPxvEk01vbjXWCaBvdWhSyOdC1lQ0EuX J7NA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.27.199 with SMTP id v7mr7338871oeg.37.1336675001096; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.67.202 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:36:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [24.21.216.213] In-Reply-To: <201205101834.q4AIY1QH023907@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <201205101834.q4AIY1QH023907@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:36:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: Bob Briscoe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnYv5ftMwzvNi358WEyWwx2YjlErgU/qCbeI94lcJIJDfFqtYni29p4NhzaekfXqnVHBIcQ Cc: SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:36:43 -0000 Hey Bob, >> I just added "Hybrid Models" under areas of interest. The points you >> mention fall under that. Let me know if that gets what you want. > > > Fine. Good. > >> > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >> >> I didn't add this as it seems obvious that we would do that in any >> area we studied. > > > Those currently making these assertions don't seem to find this obvious at > all. > > I just figured we should be at pains to look objective, rather than looking > as if we want the research to confirm the answer we would like to hear. > >> > [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane >> > to >> > rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from >> > distributed >> > systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to >> > allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have >> > evidence >> > yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. >> >> Done. I will just mention that if you look at the early work by Scott >> and Nick you'll see that they heavily leverage what they assert is >> mature work in the area of state distribution in the distributed >> systems community. > > > Certainly, SDN re-uses fault tolerance and state distribution based on tried > and tested distributed systems research. But that doesn't mean the SDN > /system/ as a whole is backed up by years of accepted research - far from > it. Even the state distribution part is only about whether the state > sub-system /can/ always be made to become consistent. > > I'm not aware of any research into the dynamics when this sub-system > interacts with demand - ie what levels of churn at scale would outrun an SDN > system's ability to maintain state consistency, and whether such levels are > likely in the real world. Whereas there's been loads of research into that > for the distributed routing protocols. Hey, you just hit on one of my favorite research topics. > > BTW, this is a good example of the need for research - no-one wants to find > out about scale problems like this only when the mountain has reached such a > scale that it has become very embarrassing (and very painful) to fall off > the mountain. Yep. Thnx, --dmm From edc@google.com Thu May 10 11:45:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7B521F8633 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EIyNzfs9NC+F for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C910921F862F for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by laai10 with SMTP id i10so678170laa.13 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=N/GSlVHQqrvx6pJ4CxwnoOcqvYrD7yq3lW1Ja3jJY1Y=; b=baahH1AHBPYJLpuH9B7tP7sL0RI40KIVBzTeKzL/RTAXlWz+RWX9k5MS/aML6Bj5je erLVg9/qu+9ttIYlpG0NXzZnioti+CsmGxLVPObUVSkLKsai4ejlsgOrADCYpte8B8X+ k7mMumrJKZ46TxphjISYoGpK5QQx3PqRGw72FyxrXmPntWROO0mXFxV7qHlrwedbsB+y RWSCpeMmpjORKbedLM+p803Ses+rAEzJdIxc7LkR87+5Y0VqWp4PPUkfmvjorn/VBC7O Wp5txLmORNFFeEPcFESHqFF5JZJtqTCa/ibEhXw6OzS6D0IQxKXAmy/x5fxe3IWGYamG RfXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=N/GSlVHQqrvx6pJ4CxwnoOcqvYrD7yq3lW1Ja3jJY1Y=; b=JNIea7XjkEPtg5509+rru+2a4zzH+POZBq8su7LlhrZqwjpOCIzgGtPWXzE4HcLc9k N3aZjP6M/WH3jbUEXMDp5qqVWB/d3J992w3h9zYqKWjiqwp6nGrUhdpQgvt9qstX2LDd bYSKs/qOSQ4wzdPj8OBhCEqYJif34/sDHgm/rWcIN3X1MmftpVxYeLQkiqtSI0SOjK93 q0QPkS2lLC0733v/2Y9vIXkWE8MHc8gDDHqCCesJT56rqReqth242M8NYc4YH3qJNFFb u2Hye6jT9Z/lVB5PJb5L8IhG79l6iIS9a8tPSd6BBAOUqmKnHWV7zOs3dWdFcm/+6YSQ IT1w== Received: by 10.152.105.173 with SMTP id gn13mr5300499lab.20.1336675515549; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.105.173 with SMTP id gn13mr5300485lab.20.1336675515373; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.82.98 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:44:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> From: Edward Crabbe Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:44:34 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bob Briscoe Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040714c546172704bfb305fc X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDfSEXN2Z2w02ugqBAIgkZ1yI31NVFJm3IwNDxxDiJ0gslVls06RsCGwk09sShY+JtYMZStp2L7zU+6w7zuA9Xky7FomnDLVkt/poYL1KHrySfr6KUxi1/hFLIR48ILXNe7NbI Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:45:18 -0000 --f46d040714c546172704bfb305fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree with most of the points below. One comment in-line though: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > Dave, > > [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] > > Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. > > The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item > for them under "Areas to work on". How about: > > * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in > hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable > safety, security etc) > * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. > > [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, but > for researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the > alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, > without investigating whether others could do it better.] > > Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: > > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. > > [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane to > rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from distributed > systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to > allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have evidence > yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. > Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed systems > theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding > technologies.] > I disagree: we actually do - admittedly it's only one data point but: we (google) used openflow to produce a TE system used on our dc-dc backbone. All in all, development to deploy was about a year. Theres a video of a pretty high level presentation Urs gave at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLHJUfgxEO4 > > > Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues in > Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought to > identify that as a potential work-item. > > > > Bob > > > At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: > >> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/**sdnrg.html >> >> comments? >> >> --dmm >> ______________________________**_________________ >> SDNP mailing list >> SDNP@lucidvision.com >> http://lucidvision.com/**mailman/listinfo/sdnp >> > > ______________________________**______________________________**____ > Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design > ______________________________**_________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/sdn > --f46d040714c546172704bfb305fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with most of the points below. =A0 One comment in-line though:
<= br>
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe = <bob.briscoe@bt.com> wrote:
Dave,

[Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list]

Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter.

The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item for= them under "Areas to work on". How about:

* appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in hyb= rid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable safety, s= ecurity etc)
* Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models.

[This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" poin= t, but for researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the= alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, witho= ut investigating whether others could do it better.]

Another suggestion to add to the bullet list:

* Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN.

[In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plan= e to rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from distrib= uted systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as &quo= t;aiming to allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't th= ink we have evidence yet that logical centralisation of control results in = faster evolution. Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepte= d distributed systems theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed = routing & forwarding technologies.]

I disagree: =A0 we actually do -=A0admitte= dly=A0it's only one data point but: =A0we (google) used openflow to pro= duce a TE system used on our dc-dc backbone. =A0 All in all, development to= deploy was about a year. =A0Theres a video of a pretty high level presenta= tion Urs gave at=A0



Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issue= s in Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter= ought to identify that as a potential work-item.



Bob


At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote:
http://w= ww.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html

comments?

--dmm
_______________________________________________
SDNP mailing list
SDNP@lucidvision.= com
= http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp

_____________________________________________________________= ___
Bob Briscoe, =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0BT Innovate & Design
_______________________________________________
sdn mailing list
sdn@irtf.org
htt= ps://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn

--f46d040714c546172704bfb305fc-- From robert@raszuk.net Thu May 10 11:57:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333AB11E80A2 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c0yRZole-d9Z for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101BB11E8098 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 11:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 19639 invoked by uid 399); 10 May 2012 18:57:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.58?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.240.97) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 10 May 2012 18:57:39 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.240.97 Message-ID: <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 20:57:38 +0200 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Edward Crabbe , Bob Briscoe References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:57:42 -0000 I think this thread or in particular this example perfectly proves the huge confusion what SDN means. I think Bob has in mind a totally centralized control of every packet in every network node. Ed on the other hand provided good prove that using SDN wisely (for central end to end path calculation) has been proven to work in real networks in real time. Yet another deployed industry example of good SDN application is ATT's IRSCP ... http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/~pverkaik/pubs/irscp-usenix2007.pdf I think regardless in what forum SDN is going to be discussed we need to be much more precise on the applicability. SDN is like a knife .. you can really hurt yourself if you are not careful yet imagine life without one. Till date vendors were preparing sandwiches for you .. now there is opportunity for you to do it yourself. Rgs, R. > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. > > [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control > plane to rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles > from distributed systems for implementation"? This would be better > phrased as "aiming to allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I > don't think we have evidence yet that logical centralisation of > control results in faster evolution. Also, I don't think SDN is as > firmly based on accepted distributed systems theory as the more > thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding technologies.] > > I disagree: we actually do - admittedly it's only one data point but: > we (google) used openflow to produce a TE system used on our dc-dc > backbone. All in all, development to deploy was about a year. Theres > a video of a pretty high level presentation Urs gave at > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLHJUfgxEO4 From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Thu May 10 13:05:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB46211E8074 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 13:05:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0-4nWPuePvRu for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 13:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B509921F86B3 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E22F5210AA3C; Thu, 10 May 2012 16:05:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zHTtNgbyRk5J; Thu, 10 May 2012 16:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sa-nc-common3-228.static.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DFA210AA34; Thu, 10 May 2012 16:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: <201205101834.q4AIY1QH023907@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 16:05:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <35F5E686-65C2-4030-AF15-969337143BD0@lucidvision.com> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <201205101834.q4AIY1QH023907@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> To: Bob Briscoe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 20:05:21 -0000 On May 10, 2012:2:33 PM, at 2:33 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > David, >=20 > At 14:26 10/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >> Bob, >>=20 >> Thanks for the thoughtful comments. A few comments in-line: >>=20 >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe = wrote: >> > The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet = item for >> > them under "Areas to work on". How about: >> > >> > * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN = control in >> > hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them = (provable safety, >> > security etc) >> > * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. >>=20 >> I just added "Hybrid Models" under areas of interest. The points you >> mention fall under that. Let me know if that gets what you want. >=20 > Fine. >=20 >> > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >>=20 >> I didn't add this as it seems obvious that we would do that in any >> area we studied. >=20 > Those currently making these assertions don't seem to find this = obvious at all. >=20 > I just figured we should be at pains to look objective, rather than = looking as if we want the research to confirm the answer we would like = to hear. >=20 >> > [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control = plane to >> > rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from = distributed >> > systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as = "aiming to >> > allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have = evidence >> > yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster = evolution. >>=20 >> Done. I will just mention that if you look at the early work by Scott >> and Nick you'll see that they heavily leverage what they assert is >> mature work in the area of state distribution in the distributed >> systems community. >=20 > Certainly, SDN re-uses fault tolerance and state distribution based on = tried and tested distributed systems research. But that doesn't mean the = SDN /system/ as a whole is backed up by years of accepted research - far = from it. Even the state distribution part is only about whether the = state sub-system /can/ always be made to become consistent. >=20 > I'm not aware of any research into the dynamics when this sub-system = interacts with demand - ie what levels of churn at scale would outrun an = SDN system's ability to maintain state consistency, and whether such = levels are likely in the real world. Whereas there's been loads of = research into that for the distributed routing protocols. >=20 > BTW, this is a good example of the need for research - no-one wants to = find out about scale problems like this only when the mountain has = reached such a scale that it has become very embarrassing (and very = painful) to fall off the mountain. TOM: Precisely my thinking about why the IRTF group is a good idea. --Tom >=20 >=20 > Bob >=20 >=20 >> > Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed = systems >> > theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & = forwarding >> > technologies.] >>=20 >> Again, I believe this thinking originates with early work in the = area. >>=20 >> > >> > >> > Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open = Issues in >> > Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter = ought to >> > identify that as a potential work-item. >>=20 >> Yep. I added a "Potential Work Items" section that contains this one. >> If folks have others let me know and I'll add them >>=20 >> Again, thanks for the thoughtful comments. >>=20 >> --dmm >>=20 >> > >> > >> > >> > Bob >> > >> > >> > At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >> >> >> >> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html >> >> >> >> comments? >> >> >> >> --dmm >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> SDNP mailing list >> >> SDNP@lucidvision.com >> >> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp >> > >> > >> > ________________________________________________________________ >> > Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >=20 > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design=20 > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >=20 From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Thu May 10 15:06:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C65721F8473 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 15:06:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.054 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.502, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IYB5lZxGVQ9C for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 15:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C9F21F846F for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 15:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4ALpbh5014272; Fri, 11 May 2012 03:21:37 +0530 Received: from 117.193.52.75 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2012 03:21:38 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <49533.117.193.52.75.1336686698.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 03:21:38 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: "Edward Crabbe" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4ALpbh5014272 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Bob Briscoe Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 22:06:59 -0000 Hi Ed, Very interesting keynote, thanks for this pointer, per this talk i see OSS systems, will be (should be ) must adapt (is well positioned to do so and hence must be leveraged)and must be playing a central role here. This perhaps also means that OSS Standards such as TMF will too, and will need much more closer ties with IETF... Urs talks about OAM aspects too, though he hasnt used that terminology per se, one of the things he did not touch is the possibility of a gradual migration, for example, consider the question Ericsson had for Urs on MPLS, google has moved some control plane but not others. Most likely service providers would need to do the same thing too. In that case the centralized controller has a greater challenge than just handling link failures that Urs talked about....it also needs to handle, possible misconfiguration errors, (which is perhaps even more severe with SDN) verification of control planes (that have not yet been SDNed) against the forwarding plane for more soft and therefore hard to find causes for failures, also coming to aid is OAM which can (ironically) function as a "control plane" for SDN funcationality to handle scaling issues by decoupling client and server from the fault analysis.... An area we could look at therefore is would IETF have a recommendation for the migration path, which distributed control planes could be done away with and for those that survive for now, how they could aid by providing OAMs such as verification against the forwarding plane and server-layer transparent T&D aided by OAM standards. Sitaraman > I agree with most of the points below. One comment in-line though: > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > >> Dave, >> >> [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] >> >> Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. >> >> The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item >> for them under "Areas to work on". How about: >> >> * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in >> hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable >> safety, security etc) >> * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. >> >> [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, but >> for researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the >> alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, >> without investigating whether others could do it better.] >> >> Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: >> >> * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >> >> [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane >> to >> rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from >> distributed >> systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to >> allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have >> evidence >> yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. >> Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed >> systems >> theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & >> forwarding >> technologies.] >> > > I disagree: we actually do - admittedly it's only one data point but: > we > (google) used openflow to produce a TE system used on our dc-dc backbone. > All in all, development to deploy was about a year. Theres a video of a > pretty high level presentation Urs gave at > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLHJUfgxEO4 > >> >> >> Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues >> in >> Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought >> to >> identify that as a potential work-item. >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >> >>> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/**sdnrg.html >>> >>> comments? >>> >>> --dmm >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> SDNP mailing list >>> SDNP@lucidvision.com >>> http://lucidvision.com/**mailman/listinfo/sdnp >>> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________**____ >> Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design >> ______________________________**_________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/sdn >> > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From bob.briscoe@bt.com Thu May 10 18:37:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E9F21F8467 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 18:37:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pqgZeQmL-7or for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 18:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hubrelay-by-03.bt.com (hubrelay-by-03.bt.com [62.7.242.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D468521F8455 for ; Thu, 10 May 2012 18:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EVMHR72-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.110) by EVMHR03-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.159.2; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:37:15 +0100 Received: from rdw02134app71.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.234.138) by EVMHR72-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:37:19 +0100 Received: from cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (147.149.100.81) by rdw02134app71.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.6.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:37:18 +0100 Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1336700236296; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:37:16 +0100 Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.142.65.228]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id q4B1bE7I026069; Fri, 11 May 2012 02:37:14 +0100 Message-ID: <201205110137.q4B1bE7I026069@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 02:37:11 +0100 To: From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Edward Crabbe Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 01:37:22 -0000 Robert, At 19:57 10/05/2012, Robert Raszuk wrote: >I think this thread or in particular this example perfectly proves >the huge confusion what SDN means. > >I think Bob has in mind a totally centralized control of every >packet in every network node. Er no. I had in mind a spectrum from v light to v heavy churn, and the question was how far would it be possible to go along that churn spectrum. For instance, it's one thing to be running a network and data centre for your own company's applications (Google); it's another to host multiple tenants, who are all pulling in different directions. It's yet another to give those tenants controls that indirectly affect your network controls through your monitors and automation, or even through direct APIs. We've been through this process with other networks (e.g. Parlay X & OneAPI on PSTN/Mobile). If your business is hosting (as ours is), the problem becomes how to balance your tenants' desire for more control with a sensible level of tailorability. You don't have free choice over what's sensible any more - the market tries to pull you to give away more control than would otherwise be sensible. >Ed on the other hand provided good prove that using SDN wisely (for >central end to end path calculation) has been proven to work in real >networks in real time. > >Yet another deployed industry example of good SDN application is >ATT's IRSCP ... http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/~pverkaik/pubs/irscp-usenix2007.pdf > >I think regardless in what forum SDN is going to be discussed we >need to be much more precise on the applicability. > >SDN is like a knife .. you can really hurt yourself if you are not >careful yet imagine life without one. Till date vendors were >preparing sandwiches for you .. now there is opportunity for you to >do it yourself. Perhaps these points about initial SDN applicability would be better suited to the IETF SDNP list? We're trying to define an r-g charter here. Bob >Rgs, >R. > > ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design From dmm@1-4-5.net Fri May 11 06:46:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807D621F871A for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:46:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.631 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JDGN6+4MRw+D for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com (mail-qa0-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2CC21F8717 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so2149542qab.1 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:45:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=dUWLN1z2EErqCBYfopNHlFl4U9z4N89AR2rrbCSVMow=; b=OqUlSalFSq2epIkI4EvUrUkC875b6FERVm1iY1mHGvZWjijI/KBWeTgGyZ4ue3AX6v vWmvYdF3mjRH5d0Q2ttqUx9CnnzsBgYUZS9wXclNVRTgZ53v7ocsEVmhFM0M9bqb7YGj Oo7QB9vcvM+uTataJePfqiwUII1qCqAqmqMimAZgC6MU7BuTKsRIM2X2t3v9rMeX3x27 DUvxXBWWBgfoBtm81a8X+xpQO/TeV0djJLoi6StcTBw3IpwmyOYZTEL3pbU0y1TXeKsv cYYin59ep30f1iIwFsSsHLXGf/lgfARSRF6q3lp+B9vGHlOYYVzCiimvrGCGmXyBmXxq gqXg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.238.208 with SMTP id kt16mr5059684vcb.71.1336743958839; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.240 with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2012 06:45:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 06:45:58 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: SDN IRTF list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYQJJg+gJYA8eOZcVNRTjuu63SzW583NDFSwsZaSgy2A/8pkxyzhWP+Xm1vxvgLwGOw7Un Subject: [Sdn] I added system complexity as an area of interest to the charter X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:46:07 -0000 Basically, an architectural hallmark of scalable systems is that they are massively distributed and highly layered with multi-layer feedback control loops. Recent SDN architectures centralize at least some functionality and in the case of OpenFlow, essentially "de-layer" the protocol stack. This has implications for feedback control systems that are at best poorly understood. See e.g., http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/talks/IETF83/ncrg_complexity_antifragility_and_integrated_thories.pdf. The updated strawman charter is on http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/sdnrg.html As always, comments greatly appreciated. --dmm From ping@pingpan.org Fri May 11 14:35:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4C721F852D for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:35:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.143 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5hmlZctO4Mgc for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BD6221F8517 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT62GMjIM5/GhG1PfHZxcI1xx3kAIoMJq@postini.com; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:35:47 PDT Received: by mail-yw0-f50.google.com with SMTP id j63so3297542yhj.9 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:35:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=h2uylICIRvKaQH5rluyLmj9n+t8z6t/du1at8II5rPY=; b=d7EAzo2YrcXF+7vzX8l/NF1yvozwsr4s3mjTgQLsMGpJlgHdyfC3H47GqKnXyreWxO AMpkh2aPgy9hbKGxvm6yzDM0afMbfsAmZLqaIp3o1GGaKBB07kFVoaOwW0lQoe66soSD q8pDpVqUaomjScp7qo20YmqkCurvLROpBTZQDr9dVpcheoNmP0BH9vStM+ZccBlx7gJH RvCoEVTESzBOzx9ErNKU7W4ubP5J5TWf1mD3kvYyHWJlz0iXIMulQfqgs8kdCy5nP1N3 EX6ay4hT9Z2ueziwo/Jo2dUst2ukOhLp009NzMFdvaO8/wPsJ2pmTbKi8J9KrYYgeREt TFbA== Received: by 10.50.217.137 with SMTP id oy9mr2592239igc.31.1336772146483; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:35:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.109.228 with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2012 14:35:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> From: Ping Pan Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:35:06 -0700 Message-ID: To: robert@raszuk.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340e85efd41204bfc9843c X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbc5cLDD/mYZwliQYFc9wSPPnypb8tAQwL+9whLSHhi1tRmeVd+MaxJcqFut06ahmmHKf7 Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Edward Crabbe , Bob Briscoe , sdnp Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 21:35:54 -0000 --14dae9340e85efd41204bfc9843c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > I think this thread or in particular this example perfectly proves the > huge confusion what SDN means. > > I think Bob has in mind a totally centralized control of every packet in > every network node. > > Ed on the other hand provided good prove that using SDN wisely (for > central end to end path calculation) has been proven to work in real > networks in real time. > > Yet another deployed industry example of good SDN application is ATT's > IRSCP ... http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/~**pverkaik/pubs/irscp-**usenix2007.pdf > > I think regardless in what forum SDN is going to be discussed we need to > be much more precise on the applicability. > > First of all, I do think that it's a good idea to have a SDN research forum in IRTF. The scope being described by David makes sense, though, to me, it looks like some of the things being cooked in ONF too. Second, I think we need to focus. When we were floating the SDN ideas in IETF some nine months ago, we were partly frustrated with the lack of ability in the tools and protocols available at the time. Also we were confused by the non-technical claims such as cost reduction and router replacement. Since then, the industry has come a long way. A lot of solid technical work and applications have surfaced, and we begin to see the areas where the standardization would play a role. If we look at the entire scope of SDN, the most disruptive area is in the SDN-driven applications. In this area, we are facing a paradigm shift in network architecture and services, but not necessarily new protocols. What we need is to present an uniformed network interface to the applications, but not to define and specify the applications themselves. Then there is the south-bound network interface portion. Some of the work has been defined in the context of OpenFlow. Some can be done by the existing protocols. In this area, there is a strong need to define an common interface where the application can query and monitor the underlying networks. We can certainly borrow some of the ideas in ALTO. And the recent BGP-TE work from Juniper makes a lot of sense too. Also how much we can borrow from the PCE work would be interesting too. Further, there is a strong need in the north-bound network interface, where the applications can interface with the SDN "controller" and issue commands for configuration, monitoring and discovery. There has been a lot of interface being defined in this area to date, most notably, OpenFlow Quantum. Nevertheless, we believe that there is a strong need to have a standardized interface here. In other words, we need to focus on the interface to applications and the interface to the networks. Our goal is that, one day, the providers can create and define new services spanning from virtual machines, to ToR's, to routers, to transport gears, seamlessly over the existing infrastructure, and transparent to the applications. > SDN is like a knife .. you can really hurt yourself if you are not careful > yet imagine life without one. Till date vendors were preparing sandwiches > for you .. now there is opportunity for you to do it yourself. > > IMHO, SDN is not a controllable movement. We cannot un-invent something that has been deployed and working. (I remember a wise guy were saying: "OpenFlow is here today. Why? We are going to uninvent it?" :-)) But I think we will be experiencing chaos for some time to come. As always, the main motivation in SDN is not driven by technology choices, rather, it's by business incentive and opportunities. In the past many months, I have spoken to many SDN-related parties, and the answers are everywhere. :-) But as soon as we align the answers with their business, they all make perfect sense. :-) So yes, it's like a knife, and the network, as we know it, will be forever changed after this. ;-) Regards, Ping > Rgs, > R. > > > > * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >> >> [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control >> plane to rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles >> from distributed systems for implementation"? This would be better >> phrased as "aiming to allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I >> don't think we have evidence yet that logical centralisation of >> control results in faster evolution. Also, I don't think SDN is as >> firmly based on accepted distributed systems theory as the more >> thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding technologies.] >> >> I disagree: we actually do - admittedly it's only one data point but: >> we (google) used openflow to produce a TE system used on our dc-dc >> backbone. All in all, development to deploy was about a year. Theres >> a video of a pretty high level presentation Urs gave at >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=VLHJUfgxEO4 >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/sdn > --14dae9340e85efd41204bfc9843c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Robert Raszuk = <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

I think this thread or in particular this example perfectly proves the huge= confusion what SDN means.

I think Bob has in mind a totally centralized control of every packet in ev= ery network node.

Ed on the other hand provided good prove that using SDN wisely (for central= end to end path calculation) has been proven to work in real networks in r= eal time.

Yet another deployed industry example of good SDN application is ATT's = IRSCP ... http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/~pverkaik/pubs/irscp-= usenix2007.pdf

I think regardless in what forum SDN is going to be discussed we need to be= much more precise on the applicability.


First of all, I do think that it's= a good idea to have a SDN research forum in IRTF. The scope being describe= d by David makes sense, though, to me, it looks like some of the things bei= ng cooked in ONF too.

Second, I think we need to focus. When we were floating= the SDN ideas in IETF some nine months ago, we were partly frustrated with= the lack of ability in the tools and protocols available at the time. Also= we were confused by the non-technical claims such as cost reduction and ro= uter replacement. Since then, the industry has come a long way. A lot of so= lid technical work and applications have surfaced, and we begin to see the = areas where the standardization would play a role.

If we look at the entire scope of SDN, the most disrupt= ive area is in the SDN-driven applications. In this area, we are facing a p= aradigm shift in network architecture and services, but not=C2=A0necessaril= y=C2=A0new protocols.=C2=A0What we need is to present an uniformed network = interface to the applications, but not to define and specify the applicatio= ns themselves.

Then there is the south-bound network interface portion= . Some of the work has been defined in the context of OpenFlow. Some can be= done by the existing protocols. In this area, there is a strong need to de= fine an common interface where the application can query and monitor the un= derlying networks. We can certainly borrow some of the ideas in ALTO. And t= he recent BGP-TE work from Juniper makes a lot of sense too. Also how much = we can borrow from the PCE work would be interesting too.

Further, there is a strong need in the north-bound netw= ork interface, where the applications can interface with the SDN "cont= roller" and issue commands for configuration, monitoring and discovery= . There has been a lot of interface being defined in this area to date, mos= t notably, OpenFlow Quantum.=C2=A0Nevertheless, we believe that there is a = strong need to have a=C2=A0standardized=C2=A0interface here.

In other words, we need to focus on the interface to ap= plications and the interface to the networks. Our goal is that, one day, th= e providers can create and define new services spanning from virtual machin= es, to ToR's, to routers, to transport gears,=C2=A0seamlessly=C2=A0over= the existing=C2=A0infrastructure, and transparent to the applications.

=C2=A0
SDN is like a knife .. you can really hurt yourself if you are not careful = yet imagine life without one. Till date vendors were preparing sandwiches f= or you .. now there is opportunity for you to do it yourself.


IMHO, SDN is not a controllable moveme= nt. We cannot un-invent something that has been deployed and working. (I re= member a wise guy were saying: "OpenFlow is here today. Why? We are go= ing to uninvent it?" :-)) =C2=A0But I think we will be=C2=A0experienci= ng chaos for some time to come. As always, the main motivation in SDN is no= t driven by technology choices, rather, it's by business incentive and = opportunities. In the past many months, I have spoken to many SDN-related p= arties, and the answers are everywhere. :-) But as soon as we align the ans= wers with their business, they all make perfect sense. :-)=C2=A0

So yes, it's like a knife, and the network, as we k= now it, will be forever changed after this. ;-)

Re= gards,
=C2=A0
Ping

=C2=A0
Rgs,
R.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0[In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing th= e control
=C2=A0 =C2=A0plane to rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design princ= iples
=C2=A0 =C2=A0from distributed systems for implementation"? This would= be better
=C2=A0 =C2=A0phrased as "aiming to allow the control plane to rapidly= evolve". I
=C2=A0 =C2=A0don't think we have evidence yet that logical centralisat= ion of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0control results in faster evolution. Also, I don't think = SDN is as
=C2=A0 =C2=A0firmly based on accepted distributed systems theory as the mo= re
=C2=A0 =C2=A0thoroughly researched distributed routing & forwarding te= chnologies.]

I disagree: =C2=A0 we actually do - admittedly it's only one data point= but:
=C2=A0we (google) used openflow to produce a TE system used on our dc-dc backbone. =C2=A0 All in all, development to deploy was about a year. =C2=A0= Theres
a video of a pretty high level presentation Urs gave at

= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVLHJUfgxEO4

_______________________________________________
sdn mailing list
sdn@irtf.org
htt= ps://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn

--14dae9340e85efd41204bfc9843c-- From robert@raszuk.net Fri May 11 15:09:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F17F21F86DC for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 15:09:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bgkjc8a3T4ni for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE6C21F865B for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30459 invoked by uid 399); 11 May 2012 22:09:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.58?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.241.252) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 11 May 2012 22:09:06 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.241.252 Message-ID: <4FAD8DFE.3050802@raszuk.net> Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 00:09:02 +0200 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ping Pan References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Meyer , Edward Crabbe , SDN IRTF list , Bob Briscoe , sdnp Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 22:09:08 -0000 Hello Ping, Some specific comments ... > First of all, I do think that it's a good idea to have a SDN research > forum in IRTF. The scope being described by David makes sense, though, > to me, it looks like some of the things being cooked in ONF too. I do not mind having one more group to discuss SDN .. the more the better. However I think there is really no clarity reg what belongs to IRTF vs IETF. Some consider SDN as pure research and future from the light years ahead of us and some have deployed SDN applications already in production. If IRTF will focus on System Complexity type of issues per today's slides from Dave then perhaps it is a good idea to separate it from SDNP. > ability in the tools and protocols available at the time. Also we were > confused by the non-technical claims such as cost reduction and router > replacement. Well believe it or not those non-technical claims are real today. And if you recall keynote talk from Ito-san during last ONF meeting they were listed on his slides. > If we look at the entire scope of SDN, the most disruptive area is in > the SDN-driven applications. In this area, we are facing a paradigm > shift in network architecture and services, but not necessarily new > protocols. What we need is to present an uniformed network interface to > the applications, but not to define and specify the applications themselves. 100% agree ! > Then there is the south-bound network interface portion. Some of the > work has been defined in the context of OpenFlow. Some can be done by > the existing protocols. In this area, there is a strong need to define > an common interface where the application can query and monitor the > underlying networks. Actually query and monitoring underlying networks is not sufficient at all. "Defined" means that application can insert required state into the network. Such state can be as simple as destination based route or as complex as L1 to L7 match to perform some forwarding decision. Here horizontal network slicing comes into the picture. Again you are right that the idea is not new. For years vendors were busy on Multi-Topology-Routing slicing or virtual/logical network planes - and real customers were and still are asking for it. With SDN and in particular with OF new tool has surfaced - FlowVisor. I do not know if this is the topic for IRTF or IETF, but horizontal network slicing yet controlling the scope of each slice is gaining a lot of real attention both in the running networks (OFELIA) as well as starting to become a consideration in number of other non-research projects. > We can certainly borrow some of the ideas in ALTO. > And the recent BGP-TE work from Juniper makes a lot of sense too. Also > how much we can borrow from the PCE work would be interesting too. Here honestly I am not sure if this is good idea to "borrow" pieces from here and there. I would rather let those work continue as-is in their respective working groups and let the SDN application designer to choose which standard based ingredient he considers fit to his project. > Further, there is a strong need in the north-bound network interface, > where the applications can interface with the SDN "controller" and issue > commands for configuration, monitoring and discovery. There has been a > lot of interface being defined in this area to date, most notably, > OpenFlow Quantum. Nevertheless, we believe that there is a strong need > to have a standardized interface here. Brilliant idea however there is one fundamental problem to realize it. The higher you bring the abstraction from actual data plane the harder it becomes to match diverse needs of the SDN applications. Let's bring one example ... - Do you find feasible for vendors to provide you the same API to their global RIBs .. even for simplicity assuming only destination based forwarding paradigm ? + - And do you expect them to drop the price of the box 10 times or more to match commodity gear if customers comes and says I want this box with RIB API, but without license to your control plane ? > In other words, we need to focus on the interface to applications and > the interface to the networks. Our goal is that, one day, the providers > can create and define new services spanning from virtual machines, to > ToR's, to routers, to transport gears, seamlessly over the > existing infrastructure, and transparent to the applications. I think that "one day" has already happened. Of course it does depend what infrastructure you have ;). > SDN is like a knife .. you can really hurt yourself if you are not > careful yet imagine life without one. Till date vendors were > preparing sandwiches for you .. now there is opportunity for you to > do it yourself. > > > So yes, it's like a knife, and the network, as we know it, will be > forever changed after this. ;-) 100% agreed ! Best regards, R. From ping@pingpan.org Fri May 11 16:01:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B61621F853C for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:01:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.417, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ost0-1YEXyzw for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F3AC521F856C for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT62aWoWmyB85tib1J2UtCX3hChLQBezt@postini.com; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:01:47 PDT Received: by mail-gg0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u4so2858762ggl.33 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:01:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=dvms31mh3yA2p2JDev1E/j5i8GepFJGjg/SQdhSllvI=; b=oP7g121tZ/eHLOu8AoGth9xzPF2+oIe0T9I59LYzflUmpIL7+j5Z3Ss3SOmWZkb9KN iIEWPcvjS2XFLYFDBVsXmh26QZFOXEBZGmB8sOfBLFJoERflcVyzfPPeySe7K3McbKIr 8c0dkLnJFDAp8w+V78RPQ4KWMpJSTrro09J7O6fBfGd5kIhYYAFByMZfa8LAb8LFVAj3 Bjg9BLvD4utZsXdFHgVCK1f6QcolYH6Z86M2MbibLwGP3SCrtXr6Cz9ppr719D8ASdWE MdJcmFV8wEDOW6ZxvnpRjDUvevw53+eFZ+7pvTHZe9hmP6H0gekjgli3ECXPUAcK9dLW C7Mg== Received: by 10.50.47.196 with SMTP id f4mr2638788ign.21.1336777306062; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:01:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.109.228 with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:01:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FAD8DFE.3050802@raszuk.net> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> <4FAD8DFE.3050802@raszuk.net> From: Ping Pan Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 16:01:05 -0700 Message-ID: To: robert@raszuk.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340aa778c03f04bfcab891 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnguLYrv8tSV8T6wR91UcAxOo/0Zmj9uMfZrLGFYTUNqhsN8XSgIPTg+N5tsXAg4TZBmh/Y Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Edward Crabbe , Bob Briscoe , sdnp Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:01:48 -0000 --14dae9340aa778c03f04bfcab891 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hello Ping, > > > ability in the tools and protocols available at the time. Also we were >> confused by the non-technical claims such as cost reduction and router >> replacement. >> > > Well believe it or not those non-technical claims are real today. And if > you recall keynote talk from Ito-san during last ONF meeting they were > listed on his slides. > > My problem was that I understand the methods in deriving network development and deployment cost and the margins. What thrown me off is the introduction of non-networking-vendor-related dirt-cheap networking switches: simple boxes with simple OpenFlow or routing function at an off-the-chart discount. This level of economics, IMHO, makes a lot of non-technical claims somewhat real... > Then there is the south-bound network interface portion. Some of the >> work has been defined in the context of OpenFlow. Some can be done by >> the existing protocols. In this area, there is a strong need to define >> an common interface where the application can query and monitor the >> underlying networks. >> > > Actually query and monitoring underlying networks is not sufficient at > all. "Defined" means that application can insert required state into the > network. Such state can be as simple as destination based route or as > complex as L1 to L7 match to perform some forwarding decision. > > Here horizontal network slicing comes into the picture. Again you are > right that the idea is not new. For years vendors were busy on > Multi-Topology-Routing slicing or virtual/logical network planes - and real > customers were and still are asking for it. > > With SDN and in particular with OF new tool has surfaced - FlowVisor. I do > not know if this is the topic for IRTF or IETF, but horizontal network > slicing yet controlling the scope of each slice is gaining a lot of real > attention both in the running networks (OFELIA) as well as starting to > become a consideration in number of other non-research projects. > > > Let's keep the actual implementation of FlowVisors out of the scope of any standard bodies. :-) But the horizontal slicing is very good idea. Let's talk in detail off-line. ;-) > We can certainly borrow some of the ideas in ALTO. >> And the recent BGP-TE work from Juniper makes a lot of sense too. Also >> how much we can borrow from the PCE work would be interesting too. >> > > Here honestly I am not sure if this is good idea to "borrow" pieces from > here and there. I would rather let those work continue as-is in their > respective working groups and let the SDN application designer to choose > which standard based ingredient he considers fit to his project. > > > OK. > Further, there is a strong need in the north-bound network interface, >> where the applications can interface with the SDN "controller" and issue >> commands for configuration, monitoring and discovery. There has been a >> lot of interface being defined in this area to date, most notably, >> OpenFlow Quantum. Nevertheless, we believe that there is a strong need >> to have a standardized interface here. >> > > Brilliant idea however there is one fundamental problem to realize it. The > higher you bring the abstraction from actual data plane the harder it > becomes to match diverse needs of the SDN applications. > > Let's bring one example ... > > - Do you find feasible for vendors to provide you the same API to their > global RIBs .. even for simplicity assuming only destination based > forwarding paradigm ? > > + > > - And do you expect them to drop the price of the box 10 times or more to > match commodity gear if customers comes and says I want this box with RIB > API, but without license to your control plane ? > > Frankly, I know what you are saying, but don't know the answer. I think that a lot of answers will emerge, not through academic guess, rather from actual deployment. Regards, Ping --14dae9340aa778c03f04bfcab891 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Robert Raszuk <= span dir=3D"ltr"><robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
Hello Ping,


ability in the tools and protocols available at the time. Also we were
confused by the non-technical claims such as cost reduction and router
replacement.

Well believe it or not those non-technical claims are real today. And if yo= u recall keynote talk from Ito-san during last ONF meeting they were listed= on his slides.


My problem was that I understand the methods in deriving network developmen= t and deployment cost and the margins. What thrown me off is the introducti= on of non-networking-vendor-related dirt-cheap networking switches: simple = boxes with simple OpenFlow or routing function at an off-the-chart discount= .

This level of economics, IMHO, makes a lot of non-techn= ical claims somewhat real...





Let's keep the actual implem= entation of FlowVisors out of the scope of any standard bodies. :-) But the= horizontal slicing is very good idea. Let's talk in detail off-line. ;= -)
=C2=A0
We can certainly borrow some of the ideas in ALTO.
And the recent BGP-TE work from Juniper makes a lot of sense too. Also
how much we can borrow from the PCE work would be interesting too.

Here honestly I am not sure if this is good idea to "borrow" piec= es from here and there. I would rather let those work continue as-is in the= ir respective working groups and let the SDN application designer to choose= which standard based ingredient he considers fit to his project.



OK.
=C2=A0
Further, there is a strong need in the north-bound network interface,
where the applications can interface with the SDN "controller" an= d issue
commands for configuration, monitoring and discovery. There has been a
lot of interface being defined in this area to date, most notably,
OpenFlow Quantum. Nevertheless, we believe that there is a strong need
to have a standardized interface here.

Brilliant idea however there is one fundamental problem to realize it. The = higher you bring the abstraction from actual data plane the harder it becom= es to match diverse needs of the SDN applications.

Let's bring one example ...

- Do you find feasible for vendors to provide you the same API to their glo= bal RIBs .. even for simplicity assuming only destination based forwarding = paradigm ?

+

- And do you expect them to drop the price of the box 10 times or more to m= atch commodity gear if customers comes and says I want this box with RIB AP= I, but without license to your control plane ?


Frankly, I know what you are saying, but d= on't know the answer. I think that a lot of answers will emerge, not th= rough=C2=A0academic guess, rather from actual deployment.

Regards,

Ping
=C2=A0
--14dae9340aa778c03f04bfcab891-- From robert@raszuk.net Fri May 11 16:19:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455C221F8566 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:19:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SMk1MzhB8Ho3 for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8892F21F852B for ; Fri, 11 May 2012 16:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1924 invoked by uid 399); 11 May 2012 23:18:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.58?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.241.252) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 11 May 2012 23:18:58 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.241.252 Message-ID: <4FAD9E62.3090108@raszuk.net> Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 01:18:58 +0200 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ping Pan References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> <4FAD8DFE.3050802@raszuk.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Edward Crabbe , Bob Briscoe , sdnp Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:19:00 -0000 > Let's keep the actual implementation of FlowVisors out of the scope of > any standard bodies. :-) Why ? Shouldn't we rather do the opposite ? Acknowledge the values of good ideas and standardize them ? IETF has already spend a lot of time to standardize slicing of IGPs for MTR. Market proved that it was not that good of idea after all. It could be that if we attempt to standardize FlowVisor's approach to horizontal network slicing, we could really get to the crux of the issues which are obstacles for innovation and true SDN deployments in the current networks. Best, R. From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Sat May 12 07:50:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F3421F864D for ; Sat, 12 May 2012 07:50:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.211 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.755, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JnHSBoMXLClH for ; Sat, 12 May 2012 07:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6030421F8644 for ; Sat, 12 May 2012 07:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4CEYuHJ022792; Sat, 12 May 2012 20:04:56 +0530 Received: from 117.193.35.207 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Sat, 12 May 2012 20:04:58 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <57096.117.193.35.207.1336833298.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: <201205110137.q4B1bE7I026069@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> <201205110137.q4B1bE7I026069@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 20:04:58 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: "Bob Briscoe" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4CEYuHJ022792 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Cc: David Meyer , Edward Crabbe , SDN IRTF list , robert@raszuk.net Subject: [Sdn] Escher, Riemann and SDN X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 14:50:22 -0000 Hi, I fervently hope the below orthogonal viewpoint is not completely obtuse... Escheric Interpretation of Network Operations: Orthogonality and Duality are tightly related. What Escher in the Waterfall has done could be interpreted as to give a visual depiction of the interplay between orthogonality and duality. To keep it simple let us consider two dimensions alone. It would have been very difficult to depict a conduit move down and the water flowing down at the same time if there were no horizontal extent to the conduit. The horizontal component is one of the orthogonal component, and the vertical the other. Conservation demands that as one orthogonal component increases the other one decreases to compensate. The apparent contradiction in the stepping down of the conduit and water to later fall is an expression of two orthogonal components balancing each other. Let us for the moment get rid of the "discontinuity" of the water suddenly falling down and instead imagine for a moment that Escher continued further at what is a point of discontinuity down and chose to step up while the conduit does down and end at the same level at a point distant from the starting point. Now we have the analogy to networks and how Service Providers are now carrying traffic: Traffic flows from aEnd to zEnd all right, both something along the way has gone up and come down, what could it be? Why couldnt it be the level of aggregation (hierarchical composition)? From the edge the level of hierarchy to which the substance(network traffic) is subjected to increases up to the core and then is deaggregated back to the edge. There is the going up and down as traffic simply spatially goes from source to destination. So, we have a going up and coming down back to the exact same level of aggregation we started with, so there has to be some " middle" state somewhere which is a zero if the goal of carrying the traffic at the same protocol level to the destination has been achieved. The Riemann Zeta function and the hypothesis jumps to mind. The real part of the Riemann function is zero. The function itself has a very probabilistic appearance to it, the 1/x and the multiplication(ANDs, ie the complex exponent) and the additions (ORs). What would this translate to? When the frame is at the source it has well, in an ideally flexibile network infrastructure at least, has infiinte possibilities to take the next step. We got to start from the last term in the Riemann function, the probability it takes any given next step is 1/infinity, and then the available choices sequentially reduces down to 1. That leaves the pesky, complex at that, exponential. What could that be? We have only considered conceptual aggregation not the geographical expanse along which it takes place. With the following statement i am making a shameless attempt to gain some brownie points with Mathematicians which i scheme to leverage to have them spare some time to enlighten us with their miraculous ways...The apparently so "real" geographic distance measure is the actual imaginary thing and the mathematical concept of aggregation is the "real real" thing. The absolute truth. The getting from one point to the next is viewed fractally, that is the entire network is fractally composed between point aEnd and point 1 and there is both the mathematical aggregation and the conceptually imaginary geographical expanse traversed. Take for example the last conceptual jump from the infinite points from source to destination, and consider a)the imaginary part is zero, this allows modeling n number of deaggreation steps within the last jump! Pretty powerful model. Not only that it if you consider b) the real part zero, n number of physical steps and anything in between. The lay man physicist says what goes up must come down, there's got to be a middle, the Riemanian conceptual middle if the goal has indeed been achieved, if the Riemannian middle is not there, the problem could have been murdered but the soul that has not rested in peace could come back to haunt us, casparian or not, the problem is still not truly dead. Could the SDN controller be another viewpoint of the Reimannian middle for the network, possibly in the migration scenario with fractal such middles distributed across the unreal geographic expanse the very real aggregation layer rates? Could we have an abstract algebraic representation of the network and therefore leverage the huge amount of painstakingly acquired cumulative knowledge to ensure that the problem dies a natural death and its soul rests in peace? Sitaraman > Robert, > > At 19:57 10/05/2012, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >>I think this thread or in particular this example perfectly proves >>the huge confusion what SDN means. >> >>I think Bob has in mind a totally centralized control of every >>packet in every network node. > > Er no. > > I had in mind a spectrum from v light to v heavy churn, and the > question was how far would it be possible to go along that churn > spectrum. For instance, it's one thing to be running a network and > data centre for your own company's applications (Google); it's > another to host multiple tenants, who are all pulling in different > directions. It's yet another to give those tenants controls that > indirectly affect your network controls through your monitors and > automation, or even through direct APIs. We've been through this > process with other networks (e.g. Parlay X & OneAPI on PSTN/Mobile). > > If your business is hosting (as ours is), the problem becomes how to > balance your tenants' desire for more control with a sensible level > of tailorability. You don't have free choice over what's sensible any > more - the market tries to pull you to give away more control than > would otherwise be sensible. > >>Ed on the other hand provided good prove that using SDN wisely (for >>central end to end path calculation) has been proven to work in real >>networks in real time. >> >>Yet another deployed industry example of good SDN application is >>ATT's IRSCP ... >> http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/~pverkaik/pubs/irscp-usenix2007.pdf >> >>I think regardless in what forum SDN is going to be discussed we >>need to be much more precise on the applicability. >> >>SDN is like a knife .. you can really hurt yourself if you are not >>careful yet imagine life without one. Till date vendors were >>preparing sandwiches for you .. now there is opportunity for you to >>do it yourself. > > Perhaps these points about initial SDN applicability would be better > suited to the IETF SDNP list? We're trying to define an r-g charter here. > > > Bob > > >>Rgs, >>R. >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design > > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Sat May 12 08:13:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779DC21F865B for ; Sat, 12 May 2012 08:13:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.279 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.687, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uJSrOWAqruWX for ; Sat, 12 May 2012 08:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71C621F85CF for ; Sat, 12 May 2012 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4CEvrEI023548; Sat, 12 May 2012 20:27:53 +0530 Received: from 117.193.35.207 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Sat, 12 May 2012 20:27:54 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <57684.117.193.35.207.1336834674.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: <57096.117.193.35.207.1336833298.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <4FAC0FA2.3010004@raszuk.net> <201205110137.q4B1bE7I026069@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <57096.117.193.35.207.1336833298.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 20:27:54 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4CEvrEI023548 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Edward Crabbe , Bob Briscoe , robert@raszuk.net Subject: Re: [Sdn] Escher, Riemann and SDN X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 15:13:18 -0000 Apologies, I meant to say the real part of the zero is half... > Hi, > I fervently hope the below orthogonal viewpoint is not completely > obtuse... > > Escheric Interpretation of Network Operations: > Orthogonality and Duality are tightly related. What Escher in the > Waterfall has done could be interpreted as to give a visual depiction of > the interplay between orthogonality and duality. To keep it simple let us > consider two dimensions alone. It would have been very difficult to > depict a conduit move down and the water flowing down at the same time if > there were no horizontal extent to the conduit. The horizontal component > is one of the orthogonal component, and the vertical the other. > Conservation demands that as one orthogonal component increases the other > one decreases to compensate. The apparent contradiction in the stepping > down of the conduit and water to later fall is an expression of two > orthogonal components balancing each other. > Let us for the moment get rid of the "discontinuity" of the water > suddenly falling down and instead imagine for a moment that Escher > continued further at what is a point of discontinuity down and chose to > step up while the conduit does down and end at the same level at a point > distant from the starting point. Now we have the analogy to networks and > how Service Providers are now carrying traffic: Traffic flows from aEnd > to zEnd all right, both something along the way has gone up and come down, > what could it be? Why couldnt it be the level of aggregation > (hierarchical composition)? From the edge the level of hierarchy to which > the substance(network traffic) is subjected to increases up to the core > and then is deaggregated back to the edge. There is the going up and down > as traffic simply spatially goes from source to destination. > So, we have a going up and coming down back to the exact same level of > aggregation we started with, so there has to be some " middle" state > somewhere which is a zero if the goal of carrying the traffic at the same > protocol level to the destination has been achieved. > The Riemann Zeta function and the hypothesis jumps to mind. The real part > of the Riemann function is zero. The function itself has a very > probabilistic appearance to it, the 1/x and the multiplication(ANDs, ie > the complex exponent) and the additions (ORs). What would this translate > to? > When the frame is at the source it has well, in an ideally flexibile > network infrastructure at least, has infiinte possibilities to take the > next step. We got to start from the last term in the Riemann function, > the probability it takes any given next step is 1/infinity, and then the > available choices sequentially reduces down to 1. > That leaves the pesky, complex at that, exponential. What could that be? > We have only considered conceptual aggregation not the geographical > expanse along which it takes place. With the following statement i am > making a shameless attempt to gain some brownie points with Mathematicians > which i scheme to leverage to have them spare some time to enlighten us > with their miraculous ways...The apparently so "real" geographic distance > measure is the actual imaginary thing and the mathematical concept of > aggregation is the "real real" thing. The absolute truth. > The getting from one point to the next is viewed fractally, that is the > entire network is fractally composed between point aEnd and point 1 and > there is both the mathematical aggregation and the conceptually imaginary > geographical expanse traversed. Take for example the last conceptual jump > from the infinite points from source to destination, and consider > a)the imaginary part is zero, this allows modeling n number of > deaggreation steps within the last jump! Pretty powerful model. Not only > that it if you consider > b) the real part zero, n number of physical steps > and anything in between. > The lay man physicist says what goes up must come down, there's got to > be a middle, the Riemanian conceptual middle if the goal has indeed been > achieved, if the Riemannian middle is not there, the problem could have > been murdered but the soul that has not rested in peace could come back to > haunt us, casparian or not, the problem is still not truly dead. > Could the SDN controller be another viewpoint of the Reimannian middle for > the network, possibly in the migration scenario with fractal such middles > distributed across the unreal geographic expanse the very real aggregation > layer rates? > Could we have an abstract algebraic representation of the network and > therefore leverage the huge amount of painstakingly acquired cumulative > knowledge to ensure that the problem dies a natural death and its soul > rests in peace? > Sitaraman > >> Robert, >> >> At 19:57 10/05/2012, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> >>>I think this thread or in particular this example perfectly proves >>>the huge confusion what SDN means. >>> >>>I think Bob has in mind a totally centralized control of every >>>packet in every network node. >> >> Er no. >> >> I had in mind a spectrum from v light to v heavy churn, and the >> question was how far would it be possible to go along that churn >> spectrum. For instance, it's one thing to be running a network and >> data centre for your own company's applications (Google); it's >> another to host multiple tenants, who are all pulling in different >> directions. It's yet another to give those tenants controls that >> indirectly affect your network controls through your monitors and >> automation, or even through direct APIs. We've been through this >> process with other networks (e.g. Parlay X & OneAPI on PSTN/Mobile). >> >> If your business is hosting (as ours is), the problem becomes how to >> balance your tenants' desire for more control with a sensible level >> of tailorability. You don't have free choice over what's sensible any >> more - the market tries to pull you to give away more control than >> would otherwise be sensible. >> >>>Ed on the other hand provided good prove that using SDN wisely (for >>>central end to end path calculation) has been proven to work in real >>>networks in real time. >>> >>>Yet another deployed industry example of good SDN application is >>>ATT's IRSCP ... >>> http://sysnet.ucsd.edu/~pverkaik/pubs/irscp-usenix2007.pdf >>> >>>I think regardless in what forum SDN is going to be discussed we >>>need to be much more precise on the applicability. >>> >>>SDN is like a knife .. you can really hurt yourself if you are not >>>careful yet imagine life without one. Till date vendors were >>>preparing sandwiches for you .. now there is opportunity for you to >>>do it yourself. >> >> Perhaps these points about initial SDN applicability would be better >> suited to the IETF SDNP list? We're trying to define an r-g charter >> here. >> >> >> Bob >> >> >>>Rgs, >>>R. >>> >>> >> >> ________________________________________________________________ >> Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Sun May 13 04:32:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A0B21F84D6 for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 04:32:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.337 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.629, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vKgydXDDgShb for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 04:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0223A21F8474 for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 04:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4DBHKEj014510; Sun, 13 May 2012 16:47:20 +0530 Received: from 117.193.35.207 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Sun, 13 May 2012 16:47:22 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <49943.117.193.35.207.1336907842.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: <49533.117.193.52.75.1336686698.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> References: <201205101038.q4AAciDX021392@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <49533.117.193.52.75.1336686698.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 16:47:22 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4DBHKEj014510 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Cc: David Meyer , SDN IRTF list , Edward Crabbe , Bob Briscoe Subject: Re: [Sdn] [Sdnp] SDNRG strawman X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 11:32:54 -0000 Hi Dave/Ed/Bob, I was reading Frenetic that Dave pointed to. Making an analogy with the Server or Personal Computer using a nework of VLSI circuits in the Chip i was wondering if there is any effort that provides and "Operating Systems" layer for the programing languages to work on. One could imagine that other languages apart form Freneti may later come into existence. Many of the issues we are discussing could be handled at an abstraction layer provided by operating systems. For example, The O/S could provide services to define coarse grained "processes" that can time share the "CPU" or parts of it i.e the Network which plays the role of CPU here. Provide coarse grained caching services (along with coherency) which map to network states akin to memory management, vis a vis storing in hard disk. Security primitives. Coarse Grained Schedulers services where network activities can be given to the scheduler. This for example may be useful to build applicaitons on top of the programming language for Network Operations purposes And perhaps there are others, such as analogies for services provided by distributed operating systems. Sitaraman > Hi Ed, > Very interesting keynote, thanks for this pointer, per this talk i see > OSS systems, will be (should be ) must adapt (is well positioned to do so > and hence must be leveraged)and must be playing a central role here. This > perhaps also means that OSS Standards such as TMF will too, and will need > much more closer ties with IETF... > > Urs talks about OAM aspects too, though he hasnt used that terminology per > se, one of the things he did not touch is the possibility of a gradual > migration, for example, consider the question Ericsson had for Urs on > MPLS, google has moved some control plane but not others. Most likely > service providers would need to do the same thing too. > In that case the centralized controller has a greater challenge than just > handling link failures that Urs talked about....it also needs to handle, > possible misconfiguration errors, (which is perhaps even more severe with > SDN) verification of control planes (that have not yet been SDNed) against > the forwarding plane for more soft and therefore hard to find causes for > failures, also coming to aid is OAM which can (ironically) function as a > "control plane" for SDN funcationality to handle scaling issues by > decoupling client and server from the fault analysis.... > An area we could look at therefore is would IETF have a recommendation for > the migration path, which distributed control planes could be done away > with and for those that survive for now, how they could aid by providing > OAMs such as verification against the forwarding plane and server-layer > transparent T&D aided by OAM standards. > Sitaraman > > >> I agree with most of the points below. One comment in-line though: >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: >> >>> Dave, >>> >>> [Continuing this thread on the new SDN IRTF list] >>> >>> Thanks for the strawman. It is indeed a good basis for an r-g charter. >>> >>> The hybrid models are well introduced, but then there is no bullet item >>> for them under "Areas to work on". How about: >>> >>> * appropriate division of labour between distributed and SDN control in >>> hybrid models and feasibility of interworking between them (provable >>> safety, security etc) >>> * Comparative evaluation of traditional and SDN control models. >>> >>> [This second one is perhaps part of your "SDN applicability" point, but >>> for researchers it is more appropriate to take a broader view of the >>> alternatives, not just try to find everything one solution could do, >>> without investigating whether others could do it better.] >>> >>> Another suggestion to add to the bullet list: >>> >>> * Evaluation of claims and assertions made about SDN. >>> >>> [In this vein, what did you have in mind by "allowing the control plane >>> to >>> rapidly evolve by relying on well-honed design principles from >>> distributed >>> systems for implementation"? This would be better phrased as "aiming to >>> allow the control plane to rapidly evolve". I don't think we have >>> evidence >>> yet that logical centralisation of control results in faster evolution. >>> Also, I don't think SDN is as firmly based on accepted distributed >>> systems >>> theory as the more thoroughly researched distributed routing & >>> forwarding >>> technologies.] >>> >> >> I disagree: we actually do - admittedly it's only one data point but: >> we >> (google) used openflow to produce a TE system used on our dc-dc >> backbone. >> All in all, development to deploy was about a year. Theres a video of a >> pretty high level presentation Urs gave at >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLHJUfgxEO4 >> >>> >>> >>> Finally, I think this thread shows that we are ripe for an "Open Issues >>> in >>> Software Defined Networking Research" draft - perhaps the charter ought >>> to >>> identify that as a potential work-item. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> At 15:17 08/05/2012, David Meyer wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/**sdnrg.html >>>> >>>> comments? >>>> >>>> --dmm >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> SDNP mailing list >>>> SDNP@lucidvision.com >>>> http://lucidvision.com/**mailman/listinfo/sdnp >>>> >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________**____ >>> Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> sdn mailing list >>> sdn@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/sdn >>> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >> > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Thu May 17 07:48:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D3321F852E for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.178 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.373, BAYES_80=2, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MKg1fWICHdKS for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1358F21F85F0 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4HEWuU1004271 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:02:56 +0530 Received: from 117.193.46.19 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:02:56 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:02:56 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: sdn@irtf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4HEWuU1004271 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Subject: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:48:22 -0000 Hi, Where are we headed? What would be the next steps? Sitaraman -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From dmm@1-4-5.net Thu May 17 07:57:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F7F21F85A8 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:57:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.317, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Ky-rICAnrl1 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0875121F853C for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbmv11 with SMTP id v11so2357998vbm.13 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:57:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=R2XA017I/z/OikAB8WQuoSc9CrIcnGOuZQlKznjN6rM=; b=mBnDU/vNLnl5C1cmacCY5SlRw2jlsZP5v3vIIF7toMH8c+enWe6XAW9N6soqQva1rE iPYINyhHsRc2066TnAKXoNcVH39wtAfsFjRHoulGjnsPxCX1azhdpQceUchrSMxMXvQV eEtdqSPk2jLa4quHRmE7vNH9ovJcGjr5XxQmjLgbagE8X9aP1SSSUgDpsxL+WKePN+dj nAC4iysRJiqPaU7rPC/XJOxneXUvACBKsX5MpftibWPFF/bz4QBfKKA0ZfY89QupcJ3M AkeufeQmUC61rC5jWKuk2d8Jz6B9fInqR8s2EylNM/0UDqjYO6ZdznjUikDcaR42kaCf hmYw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.222.13 with SMTP id ie13mr5066249vcb.52.1337266665377; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.240 with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 07:57:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] In-Reply-To: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 07:57:45 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmtmdq2bDifL/sh+DCtPq0ptqmiKRNWn707XOI9qX4/ZgZVo7q2XU1AfJt6Ui7+JANCW+s4 Cc: sdn@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:57:50 -0000 Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... --dmm On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote: > Hi, > Where are we headed? =A0What would be the next steps? > Sitaraman > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Thu May 17 08:06:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F13A21F85BD for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A0TtrxBp8Ger for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A1221F85AA for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5632121B9F; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:06:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FaVFnq3iHjaj; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.75.15.246] (mobile-198-228-224-149.mycingular.net [198.228.224.149]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88952121B9C; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:06:04 -0400 (EDT) References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206) From: Thomas Nadeau Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:05:52 -0400 To: David Meyer Cc: "sdn@irtf.org" , "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:06:16 -0000 I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open discussion ti= me when researchers can talk about what areas they want us to go in, and per= haps have vendors speak about their requests for research too. Tom=20 On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: > Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of > potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined > Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver > and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver > but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >=20 > --dmm >=20 >=20 > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote: >> Hi, >> Where are we headed? What would be the next steps? >> Sitaraman >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >=20 From dmm@1-4-5.net Thu May 17 08:07:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D2B21F855D for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.684 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.293, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iZMNmcF4mLs8 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1587421F8564 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbmv11 with SMTP id v11so2371348vbm.13 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:07:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=TkGlVZKy5qvoY5pf6mzLaXewdhWKVh8r2OkjiiFWuQU=; b=LtVNrQNiM/WcBvQVApNSfQcQdiqx0rsvldBDFRWA+Vqx4KSmk1qUCZOoasjJ1Xr1S+ 2nPoAHF8aeV2I4A3MNyc+0aORgDjocTaVM+JPdIMr4ELSZZ3+GdLGwIT9GOper1ZsN3S 9AOvUeceziTrXd7QSuSiVEKF95AvH0MaSUaOw4T4DLg9WVfZFg+M3ZT7WQWATvmH3d1/ qGVfgzpA3h49RuqqHpNGiRd4fWNMrPFbzVwRMm8FN0cehwMIWmc0CO/y2aQ0cxXo3hfb 3aRjuLl6sUpVlfhMEMZqYyPv27CgevwBQ9/VQXyhwNimxBAedctT7eo7E9gLVrO0Cy0C 9PQA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.240.73 with SMTP id kz9mr5218798vcb.9.1337267259169; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.173.240 with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:07:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.223.156.117] In-Reply-To: <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:07:39 -0700 Message-ID: From: David Meyer To: Thomas Nadeau Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkgH6Ib1axZyCBt+VP+18lRHAl6/3uiFWe4J0ToGavDc6n9qkAadhNNxxu/BbbQJz1bxdgR Cc: "sdn@irtf.org" , "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:07:40 -0000 On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Nadeau wr= ote: > I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open discussion= time when researchers can talk about what areas they want us to go in, and= perhaps have vendors speak about their requests for research too. Sure, makes sense... --dmm > > Tom > > > > On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: > >> Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of >> potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined >> Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver >> and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver >> but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >> >> --dmm >> >> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, =A0 wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Where are we headed? =A0What would be the next steps? >>> Sitaraman >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sdn mailing list >>> sdn@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >> From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Thu May 17 08:15:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494C521F85EE for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:15:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2i9ZNpcelDxd for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD2621F85E3 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4HExbIc005207; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:29:37 +0530 Received: from 117.193.46.19 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:29:37 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <53568.117.193.46.19.1337266777.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:29:37 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: "David Meyer" , "Thomas Nadeau" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4HExbIc005207 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Cc: "sdn@irtf.org" , "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:15:05 -0000 Hi, Plesae let me convey my thanks for initiating and contributing all your valuable time, experience and expertise to guide this activity. I will likely not be able to be present personally in Vancouver, would appreciate if i can put one admitedly broad request herewith. SDN will likely, for it to reach practical usability in service provider networks, will need actions at a higher layer of abstraction such as that addressed by say Frenetic. OSS Software has been dealing with centralied control of complex networks all the time. What would be the likely aspects that can be leveraged from typical OSS functionality for SDN. What are the opportunities of collaborative working each focusing on different layers of abstractions and shaking hands collaboratively for the handoffs across these layers between IETF an TMF? Thanks. Sitaraman > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Nadeau > wrote: >> I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open >> discussion time when researchers can talk about what areas they want us >> to go in, and perhaps have vendors speak about their requests for >> research too. > > Sure, makes sense... > > --dmm > >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: >> >>> Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of >>> potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined >>> Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver >>> and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver >>> but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >>> >>> --dmm >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM,   wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> Where are we headed?  What would be the next steps? >>>> Sitaraman >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sdn mailing list >>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sdn mailing list >>> sdn@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>> > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Thu May 17 08:30:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E7521F85BE for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.956, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LC96hXArU8J5 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0158D21F857F for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4HFF4Ad005538; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:45:04 +0530 Received: from 117.193.46.19 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 20:45:05 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <53812.117.193.46.19.1337267705.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:45:05 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: "David Meyer" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4HFF4Ad005538 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Cc: Thomas Nadeau , "sdn@irtf.org" , "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:30:30 -0000 Are we talking of IETF 88 in November? Sitaraman > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Nadeau > wrote: >> I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open >> discussion time when researchers can talk about what areas they want us >> to go in, and perhaps have vendors speak about their requests for >> research too. > > Sure, makes sense... > > --dmm > >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: >> >>> Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of >>> potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined >>> Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver >>> and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver >>> but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >>> >>> --dmm >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM,   wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> Where are we headed?  What would be the next steps? >>>> Sitaraman >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>> believed to be clean. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sdn mailing list >>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sdn mailing list >>> sdn@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>> > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Thu May 17 09:53:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E71421F86A6 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 09:53:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Px3YR596xuhv for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 09:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7686A21F8656 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 09:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D6B2121F6D; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:53:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lGynNSk6rTJ0; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.75.15.246] (mobile-198-228-224-149.mycingular.net [198.228.224.149]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA292121F6A; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:53:25 -0400 (EDT) References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> <53812.117.193.46.19.1337267705.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: <53812.117.193.46.19.1337267705.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <21566872-A27A-490A-A261-CB2D4C669AA5@lucidvision.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206) From: Thomas Nadeau Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:53:21 -0400 To: "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" Cc: David Meyer , "sdn@irtf.org" , "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:53:29 -0000 yes On May 17, 2012, at 11:15 AM, sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in wrote: > Are we talking of IETF 88 in November? > Sitaraman > >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Nadeau >> wrote: >>> I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open >>> discussion time when researchers can talk about what areas they want us >>> to go in, and perhaps have vendors speak about their requests for >>> research too. >> >> Sure, makes sense... >> >> --dmm >> >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: >>> >>>> Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of >>>> potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined >>>> Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver >>>> and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver >>>> but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >>>> >>>> --dmm >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Where are we headed? What would be the next steps? >>>>> Sitaraman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sdn mailing list >>>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sdn mailing list >>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > From Cedric.Westphal@huawei.com Thu May 17 10:02:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8D221F86BB for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 10:02:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K-uFr-KRhI+9 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 10:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5D021F86B3 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 10:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AGH02345; Thu, 17 May 2012 13:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 17 May 2012 10:01:31 -0700 Received: from DFWEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([fe80::cc90:b9d2:5a31:ade]) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 17 May 2012 10:01:34 -0700 From: Cedric Westphal To: Thomas Nadeau , "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" Thread-Topic: [Sdn] Hi Thread-Index: AQHNNDws0iPRCBcVpUOrJx3txyIPnpbOh7WAgAACRQCAAAB/gIAAAhSAgAAbdID//4y74A== Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:01:34 +0000 Message-ID: <369480A01F73974DAC423D05A977B4F213D1281C@dfweml510-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> <53812.117.193.46.19.1337267705.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <21566872-A27A-490A-A261-CB2D4C669AA5@lucidvision.com> In-Reply-To: <21566872-A27A-490A-A261-CB2D4C669AA5@lucidvision.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.193.35.107] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: David Meyer , "sdn@irtf.org" , "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:02:55 -0000 I thought it was IETF 85 in Vancouver this July. http://www.ietf.org/meetin= g/upcoming.html IETF 88 is in Vancouver in November, but 2013. C. -----Original Message----- From: sdn-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:sdn-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Thoma= s Nadeau Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:53 AM To: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Cc: David Meyer; sdn@irtf.org; sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi yes=20 On May 17, 2012, at 11:15 AM, sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in wrote: > Are we talking of IETF 88 in November? > Sitaraman >=20 >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Nadeau >> wrote: >>> I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open >>> discussion time when researchers can talk about what areas they want us >>> to go in, and perhaps have vendors speak about their requests for >>> research too. >>=20 >> Sure, makes sense... >>=20 >> --dmm >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Tom >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of >>>> potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined >>>> Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver >>>> and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver >>>> but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >>>>=20 >>>> --dmm >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Where are we headed? What would be the next steps? >>>>> Sitaraman >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sdn mailing list >>>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sdn mailing list >>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>=20 >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ sdn mailing list sdn@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Thu May 17 12:11:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BB921F87A7 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:11:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kgdQbp6252oc for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F51921F8683 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 12:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A60212249D; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:11:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9PpoXh0pRBzK; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [172.23.7.213] (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C520F212249A; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Thomas Nadeau X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <53812.117.193.46.19.1337267705.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:11:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> <53812.117.193.46.19.1337267705.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> To: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: David Meyer , "sdn@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:11:12 -0000 No. The next IETF in Vancouver: https://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html --Tom On May 17, 2012:11:15 AM, at 11:15 AM, sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in wrote: > Are we talking of IETF 88 in November? > Sitaraman > >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Nadeau >> wrote: >>> I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open >>> discussion time when researchers can talk about what areas they want us >>> to go in, and perhaps have vendors speak about their requests for >>> research too. >> >> Sure, makes sense... >> >> --dmm >> >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: >>> >>>> Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of >>>> potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined >>>> Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver >>>> and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver >>>> but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >>>> >>>> --dmm >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Where are we headed? What would be the next steps? >>>>> Sitaraman >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sdn mailing list >>>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sdn mailing list >>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> sdn mailing list >> sdn@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > From sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Thu May 17 15:45:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E1521F8829 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:45:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.596, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VYBllaererpo for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:45:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (unknown [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCFD21F8826 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:45:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4HMTfLZ013211; Fri, 18 May 2012 03:59:41 +0530 Received: from 117.193.46.19 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 03:59:41 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <59149.117.193.46.19.1337293781.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> <53812.117.193.46.19.1337267705.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 03:59:41 +0530 (IST) From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in To: "sdn@irtf.org" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: q4HMTfLZ013211 X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.916, required 4, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90, RP_8BIT 1.98) X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 22:45:04 -0000 Hi, In the IETF journal the following (appended at the end of this post) is stated, Is this Reasearch group to address the issues stated in the Outcome, or is the topic also addresses elsewhere within the IETF. Is the intent to build on top of the documents listed in the minutes? Thanks Sitaraman http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/ minutes/sdn.html Outcome: !ere was quite a bit of confusion and disagreement about what problem this work is intended to solve and how it is going about solving it. !e scope of the discussions was very broad. If there is work here for the IETF, it was unclear what that work might be. More work is needed from the proponents of this activity to more clearly articulate a very speci$c problem that makes sense to address within the IETF. > > No. The next IETF in Vancouver: > > https://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html > > --Tom > > > On May 17, 2012:11:15 AM, at 11:15 AM, sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in wrote: > >> Are we talking of IETF 88 in November? >> Sitaraman >> >>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Nadeau >>> >>> wrote: >>>> I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open >>>> discussion time when researchers can talk about what areas they want >>>> us >>>> to go in, and perhaps have vendors speak about their requests for >>>> research too. >>> >>> Sure, makes sense... >>> >>> --dmm >>> >>>> >>>> Tom >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of >>>>> potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined >>>>> Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver >>>>> and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver >>>>> but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >>>>> >>>>> --dmm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> Where are we headed? What would be the next steps? >>>>>> Sitaraman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> sdn mailing list >>>>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sdn mailing list >>>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sdn mailing list >>> sdn@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From Cedric.Westphal@huawei.com Thu May 17 16:33:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3436621F8757 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZE2oQ60c9BM3 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AEA21F8711 for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AGH25310; Thu, 17 May 2012 19:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.134) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:29:03 -0700 Received: from DFWEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([fe80::cc90:b9d2:5a31:ade]) by dfweml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.134]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 17 May 2012 16:29:05 -0700 From: Cedric Westphal To: "sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in" , "sdn@irtf.org" Thread-Topic: [Sdn] Hi Thread-Index: AQHNNDws0iPRCBcVpUOrJx3txyIPnpbOh7WAgAACRQCAAAB/gIAAAhSAgABB8oCAADd7gP//mwZA Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 23:29:05 +0000 Message-ID: <369480A01F73974DAC423D05A977B4F213D1297A@dfweml510-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <53159.117.193.46.19.1337265176.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <3696CB56-3BCF-4704-B648-75C4904BD803@lucidvision.com> <53812.117.193.46.19.1337267705.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <59149.117.193.46.19.1337293781.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> In-Reply-To: <59149.117.193.46.19.1337293781.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.193.35.107] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 23:33:22 -0000 This was regarding an IETF group, not IRTF. IRTF would be in parallel with = IETF. IRTF effort is new, as far as I can tell. C. -----Original Message----- From: sdn-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:sdn-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of sitar= aman@nmsworks.co.in Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:30 PM To: sdn@irtf.org Subject: Re: [Sdn] Hi Hi, In the IETF journal the following (appended at the end of this post) is stated, Is this Reasearch group to address the issues stated in the Outcome, or is the topic also addresses elsewhere within the IETF. Is the intent to build on top of the documents listed in the minutes? Thanks Sitaraman http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/ minutes/sdn.html Outcome: !ere was quite a bit of confusion and disagreement about what problem this work is intended to solve and how it is going about solving it. !e scope of the discussions was very broad. If there is work here for the IETF, it was unclear what that work might be. More work is needed from the proponents of this activity to more clearly articulate a very speci$c problem that makes sense to address within the IETF. > > No. The next IETF in Vancouver: > > https://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html > > --Tom > > > On May 17, 2012:11:15 AM, at 11:15 AM, sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in wrote: > >> Are we talking of IETF 88 in November? >> Sitaraman >> >>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Thomas Nadeau >>> >>> wrote: >>>> I was hoping to do what Dave has in addition to having an open >>>> discussion time when researchers can talk about what areas they want >>>> us >>>> to go in, and perhaps have vendors speak about their requests for >>>> research too. >>> >>> Sure, makes sense... >>> >>> --dmm >>> >>>> >>>> Tom >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 17, 2012, at 10:57 AM, David Meyer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lars can speak up here, but from where I sit: (i). Assemble a list of >>>>> potential work areas (e.g., the "Open Issues in Software Defined >>>>> Networking Research" item Bob suggested) and (ii). meet in Vancouver >>>>> and gauge interest (on all sides). I've requested a slot in Vancouver >>>>> but haven't heard back on that yet. I'm sure there are others... >>>>> >>>>> --dmm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:32 AM, wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> Where are we headed? What would be the next steps? >>>>>> Sitaraman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>>>>> believed to be clean. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> sdn mailing list >>>>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sdn mailing list >>>>> sdn@irtf.org >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sdn mailing list >>> sdn@irtf.org >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > sdn mailing list > sdn@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > --=20 This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ sdn mailing list sdn@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn From didier.colle@intec.ugent.be Wed May 30 01:31:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sdn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678A721F86E1 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 01:31:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z4hufGwmyK4U for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 01:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.ugent.be (smtp1.ugent.be [157.193.71.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAD821F8691 for ; Wed, 30 May 2012 01:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (mcheck2.ugent.be [157.193.49.249]) by smtp1.ugent.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8668909; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:31:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by UGent DICT Received: from smtp1.ugent.be ([157.193.71.182]) by localhost (mcheck2.UGent.be [157.193.43.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Souly3XGPzQK; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:31:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail2.intec.ugent.be (mail2.intec.ugent.be [157.193.214.245]) by smtp1.ugent.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5558860; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:31:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.intec.ugent.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34181F; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:31:38 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at intec.ugent.be Received: from mail2.intec.ugent.be ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.intec.ugent.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2wL91vHRuj8S; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:31:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [157.193.135.140] (dhcp-zdpt-140.intec.ugent.be [157.193.135.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dcolle) by mail2.intec.ugent.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 849411E; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:31:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4FC5DAF6.3020904@intec.ugent.be> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:31:50 +0200 From: Didier Colle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sdn@irtf.org References: <4FC5B7F6.8070102@uniroma2.it> In-Reply-To: <4FC5B7F6.8070102@uniroma2.it> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4FC5B7F6.8070102@uniroma2.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at jchkm3 with ID 4FC5DAEA.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://helpdesk.ugent.be/email/)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4FC5DAEA.003 from mail2.intec.ugent.be/mail2.intec.ugent.be/157.193.214.245/mail2.intec.ugent.be/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 4FC5DAEA.003 on smtp1.ugent.be : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Cc: stefano.salsano@uniroma2.it Subject: [Sdn] Fwd: [ewsdn-tpc] please help to distribute the CFP X-BeenThere: sdn@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List to Discuss SDN Research Group in the IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:31:47 -0000 [I hope such post is allowed on this list... otherwise my apologies...] European Workshop on Software Defined Networks (EWSDN-2012) http://ewsdn.eu The European Workshop on Software Defined Networks will be held on October 25-26, 2012 in Deutsche Telekom Campus, Darmstadt, Germany (15 minutes from Frankfurt Airport) *SDN* Software Defined Networking (SDN) is emerging as a promising architectural solution to support and foster innovation in telecommunication networks. Several switch/router vendors are “opening” their hardware, offering APIs to allow a “software defined” control of the networking operations. The vitality of the SDN approach is witnessed by the release of several SDN tools and development environments, most of which are open sourced. *OpenFlow* The OpenFlow specifications, now standardized by the Open Networking Foundation, can represent a key component in a SDN architecture, but the SDN scope and concept is much wider than the OpenFlow APIs. In particular there is the need of higher level SDN abstractions and higher level SDN APIs, as the ones that should be offered to applications (e.g. SDN “north-bound” interfaces). *European* What makes an SDN workshop “European”? Traditional strengths of European research and development have been in optical transmission and wireless, especially cellular networks. The workshop emphasizes aspects of Software Defined Networks that come up when extending SDN 'beyond Ethernet'. In this regard, “European” does not mean that we restrict to a geographic scope, we welcome contribution and participation from all over the world. *Motivation* One goal of the workshop is to bring together industry and academia on the topics of SDN, in particular the workshop will feature an “industry forum”, i.e. a session with presentations of key industrial players (manufacturers, telecom operators…). A special session will include presentation and discussion of the highest ranked proposals to the 2nd open call of the OFELIA project (http://www.fp7-ofelia.eu/open-calls/2nd-open-call/). *Contributions to the workshop* We are interested in both papers showing consolidated results and in position papers bringing up innovative ideas. We welcome contributions including, but not limited to, the following topics: - Optical extensions to OpenFlow, SDN - Wireless integration, characterization of wireless interfaces, flows, handover support - Evolved packet core, LTE support for OpenFlow - New controller architectures, Application Programmer's Interfaces, SDN “north-bound” interfaces - Higher level SDN abstractions, APIs, object models - New networking paradigms like Content or Information Centric Networks (CCN/ICN) and their relation with SDN - Carrier-grade SDN architectures and equipment - Network Virtualization techniques based on SDN - Practical experiments on OpenFlow / SDN based testbeds - Identification of use cases for SDN, SDN related business models - SDN frameworks and tools, SDN based equipment: controllers, switches, integrated development environment, testing and debugging environment *Workshop Proceedings* The EWSDN Workshop proceedings will be published in IEEE Xplore. *Important dates* Deadline for Call for Papers (up to 6 pages, double column 10pt font): June 20th, 2012 Acceptance notification: July 31st, 2012 Camera ready: September 5th, 2012 *Paper submission* EWSDN submission will be managed using the EasyChair submission system: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ewsdn12 *Workshop registration and hotel rooms* The registration cost for the two-day workshop is 200€, including electronic proceedings, one dinner, two lunches, coffee breaks. Hotel rooms at Deutsche Telekom Campus are available for workshop participants at the special rate of 68€ per nights. *Workshop Chair* Hagen Woesner, EICT, Berlin, Germany *Technical Program Committee Co-Chairs* Juergen Quittek, NEC, Heidelberg, Germany Stefano Salsano, Univ. Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy Elio Salvadori, CREATE-NET, Trento, Italy *Technical Program Committee* (in progress… few more invitations have been sent) Achim Autenrieth, ADVA, Germany Siamak Azodolmolky, Univ. of Essex, UK Dean Bogdanovic, Juniper Networks Marco Canini, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland Ramon Casellas, CTTC, Barcelona, Spain Didier Colle, IBBT - Ghent University, Belgium Francesco De Pellegrini, CREATE-NET, Trento, Italy Thomas Dietz, NEC, Germany Andreas Gladisch, Deutsche Telekom Innovation Labs, Berlin, Germany Eduardo Jacob, Basque Country University, Bilbao, Spain Wolfgang John, Ericsson Sweden Pawel Kaczmarek, ADVA, Poland Holger Karl, Universität Paderborn, Germany Eiji Kawai, NICT, Japan Wolfgang Kellerer, DOCOMO Europe, Munich, Germany Marc Koerner, TUB, Berlin, Germany Teemu Koponen, Nicira Networks Andreas Köpsel, EICT, Berlin, Germany Alessandro Leonardi, AGT, Germany Diego R. Lopez, Telefonica Antonio Manzalini, Telecom Italia Ruben Merz, Telekom Innovation Laboratories& TU Berlin, Germany Giacomo Morabito, Univ. of Catania / CNIT, Catania, Italy Akihiro Nakao, University of Tokio, Japan Reza Nejabati, Univ. of Essex, UK Bernhard Plattner, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland Stefano Previdi, CISCO, San Jose, USA Robert Raszuk, NTT MCL Roberto Riggio, CREATE-NET, Trento, Italy Charalampos Rotsos, University of Cambridge, UK Rob Sherwood, Big Switch Networks Pontus Skoldström, ACREO, Sweden Marc Sune, i2CAT, Barcelona, Spain, TBC Vincenzo Suraci, Univ. La Sapienza, Roma, Italy Attila Takacs, Ericsson Hungary Mallik Tatipamula, Ericsson Steve Uhlig, Queen Mary University of London, UK Luca Veltri, Univ. of Parma / CNIT, Parma, Italy Hagen Woesner, EICT, Berlin, Germany