IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-15: (with BLOCK)

Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Thu, 30 October 2014 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37C51A0233; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JgyjPJDFemwf; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18BE61AD4F6; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2273; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414684675; x=1415894275; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=NnNZwQ8Xaf7NkpnXe5UlTbKgWaAsHuibScsBJYsxc4A=; b=f6gAC1m8abf02OnkPuz533gTR5voTBMhR/cHU2waV/60sbYaNq6Fr2zy otI+K7s2wGWOt1Pc7B5Wj+OVDgkhhOusEFNizgORE1z4vzUzQglLgDrGb 41IPL9x0aE9Ey+S/XVKz9aLLF3IwWFPNqUCILNHUzIyplwuqTY/ER3pZA c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYFAGBfUlStJV2d/2dsb2JhbABcgw7WVQKBJBYBAQEBAX2EAwEBBDo/EAsYCQwZDwVJiFTINQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReREAcKgyOBHgWLaZIAAZY/ggYYgXodgnoBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,286,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="368175008"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2014 15:57:53 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9UFvq7D017625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:57:53 GMT
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9UFvlCc014495; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:57:47 -0700
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id s9UFvkOk014494; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:57:46 -0700
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:57:46 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <20141030155746.GA10612@cisco.com>
References: <20141030002338.25808.63071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54519567.8020201@bogus.com> <62558186-114B-43DD-AFBF-29717C804D68@nominum.com> <54519BE1.4010003@gmail.com> <5451B990.9020307@gmail.com> <48A09033-F010-4BF2-BA0D-25EAAC069B6E@nominum.com> <5452329A.8030404@gmail.com> <62818C83-64AA-4DBE-A51C-0EA622783FB3@nominum.com> <5452381E.2060904@gmail.com> <D01928C5-F97A-4991-87C7-A0E0796C5BC8@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D01928C5-F97A-4991-87C7-A0E0796C5BC8@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/W3u_BXP01h1Dm0raosVb7gFdsKs
Cc: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>, anima@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-15: (with BLOCK)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:58:04 -0000

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:13:14AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> That's between you and the ops ADs.   I'm just telling you what we've discussed.   If you want unmanaged ad-hoc configuration, that's already in homenet's charter, so I think it's out of scope for a new working group.

An ad-hoc network for a trade-show, a battlefield, city, factory etc is
in scope for homenet ? Whats exactly the line between homenet and 
manet then ? "Do not move this router from bedroom to kitchen,
it would step on manet's toes" ?

Sorry for the lame joke, but i do not think we can scope WGs reasonably
against others adjacent work by pattern matching words like ad-hoc.

Wrt. to "professionally managed" vs. "fully/semi-autonomic": I think
that are not two sides of a coin, but a continuum. IMHO, we step over
a line when we do somthing that is too experimental into the far
end of that spectrum to achieve successful near/mid-term deployments. 

Let me try to put in my words and explanation of ad-hoc, distinction
to homenet and the impact of "professional" management.

Homenet allows me to throw together routers and get an autonomically 
running network for all attached endpoints. And i thought this was
primarily for networks like you would build them for a private residence
and manage between Mrs Jones and her internet SPs.

For an anima network i throw together routers, L2 switches and other 
network equipment for a factory, city, enterprise, service-provder 
network. I take into account "professional" security/inventory management
aspects and try to get that process as much zero-touch as feasible.

When its done, i do not necessarily want default transparent end-to-end
IP connectivity for all attached devices. Instead, i just want transparent
OAM connectivity for all "professional" operations (ssh/cli...provisioning
tools...SDN controller).  I then want simplification/automation of these
"professional" processes.  And i want indestructible failsafe inband OAM
connectivity whenever the "professional" operations  makes mistakes
with eg: vpn/vrf, routing, security/access and other policies in the
network - and would in a current network disconnect themselves from
those devices they mean to manage. 

Cheers
    Toerless

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email