Re: [OPSAWG] call for opsawg agenda time requests

[<hideki.okita.pf at hitachi.com>]

David, Dan, Juergen,


Thank you so much for your reviews and comments.

First, please let me summarize David's concerns.
Please tell me if I have any misunderstanding.

  1. The proposed model seems similar to the information model 
     implicitly defined in the existing ENTITY-MIB.
  2. The draft does not mention the relationship between the proposed 
     model and the ENTITY-MIB.
  3. The draft lacks the concrete definition how the NMS presents
     the virtual network information to NMS clients. 

For the first concern, I examined the ENTITY-MIB since I have not 
considered it. I checked RFC 4133 and implementation by a router.

Then, I found that our model have a similarity with the ENTITY-MIB. 
Both of following objects describe the structure of a physical entity.
  - entPhysicalTable and entPhysicalContainsTable in the ENTITY-MIB
  - PhysicalNode, PhysicalNodeGroup, and PhysicalInterface in our model.

However, IMO, the model of the ENTITY-MIB is insufficient to 
manage virtual networks in data centers from following reasons.
  a. ENTITY-MIB does not have connection objects for describing the 
     connections between physical nodes.
  b. ENTITY-MIB does not have connection objects for describing the 
     connections between virtual nodes, for example, the connection 
     between a virtual switch and virtual machines on a physical server.
  c. ENTITY-MIB does not have virtual-virtual relationship objects for 
     describing the structure of a virtual entity.
Therefore, I'd like to propose our model as an solution and opsawg's
new work.

For the second concern, I'd like to add a "relationship to the 
ENTITY-MIB" section that describes above distinction to our draft.

For the third concern, I can add a section about a MIB module or 
an XML schema to our draft to describe the concrete datamodel. 


Best regards,

Hideki Okita


>I also had a look at the draft and I think that the basic idea
>of mapping virtual to real resources is very good.
>
>Can't we easily align the draft with the ENTITY MIB data model?
>
>I could imagine a MIB module based on the ENTITY MIB that realizes
>the information model for virtual entities in SMI.
>
>    Juergen
>
>
>On 26.10.09 13:51  "David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I did a quick read of this document. I have a concern.
>> 
>> The IETF decided years ago that a MIB module was the preferred
>> mechanism for explicitly documenting an IETF standards-track data
>> model and (implicitly) the IETF standards-track information model.
>> 
>> Once the IETF began to accept that having only one data modeling
>> language (the SMI) might not be adequate, the IETF struggled with the
>> question of "how do we deal with multiple modeling languages?", and we
>> started to pay attention to the distinction between data model and
>> information model. RFC3444 was published as output of the NMRG to help
>> clarify the distinction.
>> 
>> The informational model in
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-01.txt is similar to
>> the information model that is implicit in the ENTITY-MIB data model
>> design. 
>> 
>> I would not like to see anybody make the mistake of thinking that this
>> Informational document represents IETF consensus on an information
>> model for managing virtual networks. This document needs to be very
>> clear that the IETF already has consensus on an (implicit) information
>> model for managing physical entities, logicial entities, and the
>> mappings between them.
>> 
>> I think defining an information model for the management of virtual
>> networks is very important work, and I think this document really
>> misses an opportunity to help **standardize** how virtual network
>> management systems present information to NMS clients. This document
>> would be terrific if it extracted and documented the information model
>> implicit in the existing IETF standard ENTITY-MIB, and went on to
>> discuss whether the existing information model does or does not meet
>> the needs of real-world implementations/deployments.
>> 
>> If the existing implicit information model does meet real-world needs,
>> then I think such a document might become a BCP or an Informational
>> guideline for managing virtual networks. If the existing implicit
>> information does not meet real-world needs, then the document could be
>> a justification for an IETF standards track information model that
>> meets needs better than the current implicit information model.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the current document does not even mention that there
>> is an information model implicit in the ENTITY-MIB standard, which
>> makes me question whether this document should be published as an RFC
>> without a clear statement that it ignores, and may be in conflict
>> with, existing IETF standards.
>> 
>> dbh
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: opsawg-bounces at ietf.org
>>> [mailto:opsawg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> hideki.okita.pf at hitachi.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 7:33 AM
>>> To: sob at harvard.edu
>>> Cc: opsawg at ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] call for opsawg agenda time requests
>>> 
>>> Scott,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'd like to have a slot at the opsawg session in Hiroshima
>>> to take a presentation about the update of our network
>>> virtulization model.
>>> 
>>> "Virtual Network Management Information Model"
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-01.txt
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Hideki Okita
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> please send requests for agenda time slots for the opsawq
>>> session in Hiroshima
>>>> to the opsawg list asap
>>>> 
>>>> Scott