From nobody Wed Aug 3 16:58:39 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1117912D0B6 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:58:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.889 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 dkXW4c6D8K29 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E49712D854 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 16:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.86.154]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u73NwXoI019471 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:58:33 +0900 Received: from vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779025F69F for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:58:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from jcms-pop11.ecl.ntt.co.jp (jcms-pop11.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.87.132]) by vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC355F65A for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:58:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [129.60.21.83]) by jcms-pop11.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B760670C0581 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:58:32 +0900 (JST) From: Kohei Shiomoto Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:01:24 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: nmrg@irtf.org X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: [nmrg] IFIP/IEEE IM 2017 Call for Papers (1 month to submission deadline: September 4th, 2016) X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 23:58:37 -0000 Apologize if you receive multiple copies. ********************************************************************** IFIP/IEEE IM 2017 The 15th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management 8-12 May 2017, Lisbon, Portugal http://im2017.ieee-im.org "Integrated Management in the Cloud and 5G Era" ********************************************************************** The 15th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2017) will be held 8-12 May 2017 in Lisbon, Portugal. Held in odd-numbered years since 1989, IM 2017 follows the 29 years tradition of NOMS and IM as the primary IEEE Communications Society’s forum for technical exchange on management of information and communication technology focusing on research, development, integration, standards, service provisioning, and user communities. IM 2017 will focus on the theme "Integrated Management in the Cloud and 5G Era" presenting recent, emerging approaches and technical solutions for dealing with 5G and cloud infrastructures, as well as associated services and applications. Submissions addressing traditional network management challenges are also in the scope of the conference. IM 2017 will offer five types of sessions: technical, experience, poster, panel, and dissertation. High quality will be assured through a well-qualified Technical Program Committee and rigorous peer review of papers. A special call for demonstrations is organized to allow industry partners and researchers to demonstrate early products and prototypes. TOPICS OF INTEREST Authors are invited to submit papers that fall into or are related to the topic areas that are listed below. In addition, we invite submissions of proposals for demonstrations, exhibits, technical panels, tutorials, workshops, and experience session papers. Network Management - Software-Defined Networks - IP Networks - Wireless and Cellular Networks Optical Networks - Overlay Networks - Virtual Networks - Home Networks - Access Networks - Enterprise and Campus Networks - Data Center Networks - SCADA Networks and DCS - Wireless Sensor Networks - Internet of Things Networks - Information-Centric Networks Service Management - Multimedia Services - Content Delivery Services - Cloud Computing Services - Internet Connectivity and Access - Internet of Things Services - Security Services - Context-Aware Services - Information Technology Services Business Management - Economic Aspects - Multi-Stakeholder Aspects - Service Level Agreements - Lifecycle Aspects - Process and Workflow Aspects - Legal Perspective - Regulatory Perspective - Privacy Aspects Functional Areas - Fault Management - Configuration Management - Accounting Management - Performance Management - Security Management Management Paradigms - Centralized Management - Hierarchical Management - Distributed Management - Federated Management - Autonomic and Cognitive Management - Policy-Based Management - Pro-Active Management - Energy-Aware Management - QoE-Centric Management - Intent-Based Management Technologies - Fog and Edge Computing - Communication Protocols - Middleware - Overlay Networks - Cloud Computing and Cloud Storage - Data, Information & Semantic Models - Information Visualization - Software-Defined Networking - Network Function Virtualization - Orchestration - Operations/Business Support Systems Methods - Mathematical Logic and Automated Reasoning - Mathematical Optimization - Control Theory - Probability Theory, Stochastic Processes, and Queuing Theory - Machine Learning - Evolutionary Algorithms - Economic and Game Theory - Monitoring and Measurements - Data Mining and (Big) Data Analysis - Computer Simulation Experiments - Prototype Implementation and Testbed Experimentation - Field Trials SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Authors are invited to submit original contributions (written in English) in PDF format through the IM 2017 web site. Only original papers that have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere can be submitted. Each submission will be limited to 8 pages (full papers) or 4 pages (short papers) in IEEE 2-column style. Papers exceeding these limits, multiple submissions, and self-plagiarized papers will be rejected without further review. The authors of the IM 2017 top papers will be encouraged to extend their work and submit to IEEE TNSM (IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management. These extended papers will undergo the normal TNSM peer-review process. IMPORTANT DATES Paper Registration: September 1, 2016 Paper Submission: September 4, 2016 Notification of Acceptance: November 11, 2016 Camera Ready Papers: February 10, 2017 GENERAL CO-CHAIRS - Prosper Chemouil, Orange Labs, France - Edmundo Monteiro, University of Coimbra, Portugal TPC CO-CHAIRS - Marinos Charalambides, University College London, UK - Edmundo Madeira, University of Campinas, Brazil - Paulo Simões, University of Coimbra, Portugal From nobody Mon Aug 29 15:28:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAF512D0AF for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:28:38 -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=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 fr-g5gbjM19R for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE1512B037 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.86.154]) by tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u7TMSZ9B027380 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:28:35 +0900 Received: from vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DEA5F611 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:28:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from jcms-pop11.ecl.ntt.co.jp (jcms-pop11.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.87.132]) by vc2.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E9E5F592 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:28:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [129.60.21.83]) by jcms-pop11.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C1770C09C3 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:28:35 +0900 (JST) From: Kohei Shiomoto Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:32:53 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------79EFC534E5167791B7BD89E2" To: nmrg@irtf.org X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: [nmrg] IFIP/IEEE IM 2017 Call for Papers (6 days to submission deadline: September 4th, 2016) X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:28:39 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------79EFC534E5167791B7BD89E2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Apologizes if you received multiple copies. ********************************************************************** IFIP/IEEE IM 2017 The 15th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management 8-12 May 2017, Lisbon, Portugal http://im2017.ieee-im.org "Integrated Management in the Cloud and 5G Era" ********************************************************************** The 15th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2017) will be held 8-12 May 2017 in Lisbon, Portugal. Held in odd-numbered years since 1989, IM 2017 follows the 29 years tradition of NOMS and IM as the primary IEEE Communications Society’s forum for technical exchange on management of information and communication technology focusing on research, development, integration, standards, service provisioning, and user communities. IM 2017 will focus on the theme "Integrated Management in the Cloud and 5G Era" presenting recent, emerging approaches and technical solutions for dealing with 5G and cloud infrastructures, as well as associated services and applications. Submissions addressing traditional network management challenges are also in the scope of the conference. IM 2017 will offer five types of sessions: technical, experience, poster, panel, and dissertation. High quality will be assured through a well-qualified Technical Program Committee and rigorous peer review of papers. A special call for demonstrations is organized to allow industry partners and researchers to demonstrate early products and prototypes. TOPICS OF INTEREST Authors are invited to submit papers that fall into or are related to the topic areas that are listed below. In addition, we invite submissions of proposals for demonstrations, exhibits, technical panels, tutorials, workshops, and experience session papers. Network Management - Software-Defined Networks - IP Networks - Wireless and Cellular Networks Optical Networks - Overlay Networks - Virtual Networks - Home Networks - Access Networks - Enterprise and Campus Networks - Data Center Networks - SCADA Networks and DCS - Wireless Sensor Networks - Internet of Things Networks - Information-Centric Networks Service Management - Multimedia Services - Content Delivery Services - Cloud Computing Services - Internet Connectivity and Access - Internet of Things Services - Security Services - Context-Aware Services - Information Technology Services Business Management - Economic Aspects - Multi-Stakeholder Aspects - Service Level Agreements - Lifecycle Aspects - Process and Workflow Aspects - Legal Perspective - Regulatory Perspective - Privacy Aspects Functional Areas - Fault Management - Configuration Management - Accounting Management - Performance Management - Security Management Management Paradigms - Centralized Management - Hierarchical Management - Distributed Management - Federated Management - Autonomic and Cognitive Management - Policy-Based Management - Pro-Active Management - Energy-Aware Management - QoE-Centric Management - Intent-Based Management Technologies - Fog and Edge Computing - Communication Protocols - Middleware - Overlay Networks - Cloud Computing and Cloud Storage - Data, Information & Semantic Models - Information Visualization - Software-Defined Networking - Network Function Virtualization - Orchestration - Operations/Business Support Systems Methods - Mathematical Logic and Automated Reasoning - Mathematical Optimization - Control Theory - Probability Theory, Stochastic Processes, and Queuing Theory - Machine Learning - Evolutionary Algorithms - Economic and Game Theory - Monitoring and Measurements - Data Mining and (Big) Data Analysis - Computer Simulation Experiments - Prototype Implementation and Testbed Experimentation - Field Trials SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Authors are invited to submit original contributions (written in English) in PDF format through the IM 2017 web site. Only original papers that have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere can be submitted. Each submission will be limited to 8 pages (full papers) or 4 pages (short papers) in IEEE 2-column style. Papers exceeding these limits, multiple submissions, and self-plagiarized papers will be rejected without further review. The authors of the IM 2017 top papers will be encouraged to extend their work and submit to IEEE TNSM (IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management. These extended papers will undergo the normal TNSM peer-review process. IMPORTANT DATES Paper Registration: September 1, 2016 Paper Submission: September 4, 2016 Notification of Acceptance: November 11, 2016 Camera Ready Papers: February 10, 2017 GENERAL CO-CHAIRS - Prosper Chemouil, Orange Labs, France - Edmundo Monteiro, University of Coimbra, Portugal TPC CO-CHAIRS - Marinos Charalambides, University College London, UK - Edmundo Madeira, University of Campinas, Brazil - Paulo Simões, University of Coimbra, Portugal --------------79EFC534E5167791B7BD89E2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 
Apologizes if you received multiple copies.

**********************************************************************

                          IFIP/IEEE IM 2017
 
              The 15th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium
                   on Integrated Network Management

                   8-12 May 2017, Lisbon, Portugal
                      http://im2017.ieee-im.org

            "Integrated Management in the Cloud and 5G Era"

**********************************************************************

The  15th IFIP/IEEE  International  Symposium  on  Integrated  Network
Management (IM 2017)  will be held  8-12 May 2017 in Lisbon, Portugal.
Held in odd-numbered years since 1989,  IM 2017 follows  the  29 years
tradition of NOMS and IM as the primary IEEE Communications  Society’s
forum  for  technical  exchange  on   management  of  information  and
communication   technology    focusing   on   research,   development,
integration,  standards,  service provisioning,  and user communities.
IM 2017  will focus on  the  theme "Integrated Management in the Cloud
and 5G Era"  presenting  recent,  emerging  approaches  and  technical
solutions for dealing with 5G  and cloud  infrastructures,  as well as
associated   services   and   applications.   Submissions   addressing
traditional network management challenges are also in the scope of the
conference.  IM 2017  will  offer five  types of sessions:  technical,
experience, poster, panel, and  dissertation.  High  quality  will  be
assured  through a  well-qualified  Technical  Program  Committee  and
rigorous peer review of papers.  A special call for  demonstrations is
organized  to allow industry partners  and researchers to  demonstrate
early products and prototypes.


TOPICS OF INTEREST

Authors are invited to submit papers  that fall into or are related to
the  topic  areas  that  are  listed  below.  In addition,  we  invite 
submissions  of  proposals  for  demonstrations,  exhibits,  technical
panels, tutorials, workshops, and experience session papers.

Network Management
- Software-Defined Networks
- IP Networks
- Wireless and Cellular Networks Optical Networks
- Overlay Networks
- Virtual Networks
- Home Networks
- Access Networks
- Enterprise and Campus Networks
- Data Center Networks
- SCADA Networks and DCS
- Wireless Sensor Networks
- Internet of Things Networks
- Information-Centric Networks

Service Management
- Multimedia Services
- Content Delivery Services
- Cloud Computing Services
- Internet Connectivity and Access
- Internet of Things Services
- Security Services
- Context-Aware Services
- Information Technology Services

Business Management
- Economic Aspects
- Multi-Stakeholder Aspects
- Service Level Agreements
- Lifecycle Aspects
- Process and Workflow Aspects
- Legal Perspective
- Regulatory Perspective
- Privacy Aspects

Functional Areas
- Fault Management
- Configuration Management
- Accounting Management
- Performance Management
- Security Management

Management Paradigms
- Centralized Management
- Hierarchical Management
- Distributed Management
- Federated Management
- Autonomic and Cognitive Management
- Policy-Based Management
- Pro-Active Management
- Energy-Aware Management
- QoE-Centric Management
- Intent-Based Management

Technologies
- Fog and Edge Computing
- Communication Protocols
- Middleware
- Overlay Networks
- Cloud Computing and Cloud Storage
- Data, Information & Semantic Models
- Information Visualization
- Software-Defined Networking
- Network Function Virtualization
- Orchestration
- Operations/Business Support Systems

Methods
- Mathematical Logic and Automated Reasoning
- Mathematical Optimization
- Control Theory
- Probability Theory, Stochastic Processes, and Queuing Theory
- Machine Learning
- Evolutionary Algorithms
- Economic and Game Theory
- Monitoring and Measurements
- Data Mining and (Big) Data Analysis
- Computer Simulation Experiments
- Prototype Implementation and Testbed Experimentation
- Field Trials


SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Authors  are  invited to  submit  original  contributions (written  in
English) in  PDF format through  the IM  2017 web site.  Only original
papers  that have  not  been published  or  submitted for  publication
elsewhere  can be  submitted.  Each  submission will  be limited  to 8
pages  (full  papers) or  4  pages  (short  papers) in  IEEE  2-column
style.  Papers  exceeding  these  limits,  multiple  submissions,  and
self-plagiarized papers  will be rejected without  further review. The
authors of the  IM 2017 top papers will be  encouraged to extend their
work and submit to IEEE TNSM (IEEE Transactions on Network and Service
Management.  These  extended  papers  will  undergo  the  normal  TNSM
peer-review process.


IMPORTANT DATES

Paper Registration: September 1, 2016
Paper Submission: September 4, 2016
Notification of Acceptance: November 11, 2016
Camera Ready Papers: February 10, 2017


GENERAL CO-CHAIRS

- Prosper Chemouil, Orange Labs, France
- Edmundo Monteiro, University of Coimbra, Portugal


TPC CO-CHAIRS

- Marinos Charalambides, University College London, UK
- Edmundo Madeira, University of Campinas, Brazil
- Paulo Simões, University of Coimbra, Portugal

--------------79EFC534E5167791B7BD89E2-- From nobody Tue Aug 30 02:17:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37A612D10C for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 02:17:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 LiL9nM1NEbph for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 02:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6513012B024 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 02:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id D4C5CEE946DC3 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:17:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u7U9HTJk027660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:17:30 GMT Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u7U9HPZS013513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:17:29 +0200 Received: from [172.27.205.164] (135.239.27.38) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:17:26 +0200 To: "nmrg@irtf.org" From: Laurent Ciavaglia Organization: Nokia Bell Labs Message-ID: <5adb0bac-4f5f-5455-8c2a-0ba5c1ac5b9b@nokia-bell-labs.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:17:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------54757DE3EE0285594767273D" X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.38] Archived-At: Subject: [nmrg] Draft minutes for IETF96/Berlin SDNRG/NFVRG/NMRG joint meeting on Managing Virtualized and Programmable Networks X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:17:39 -0000 --------------54757DE3EE0285594767273D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear NM-RG, Attached below please find the draft minutes of the IETF96/Berlin meeting, the SDNRG/NFVRG/NMRG joint meeting on Managing Virtualized and Programmable Networks. We appreciate Haomian and Catalin for volunteering to take the minutes and Will for jabber scribe during the meeting. Please let us know if you have any comments and corrections. Thanks to Kohei for putting together the minutes and this message! Best regards, Lisandro and Laurent. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ IETF 96 - Joint meeting SDNRG/NFVRG/NMRG on Managing Virtualized and Programmable Networks Friday, July 22, 2016 10:00-12:00 Friday Morning session I Session Chairs: Laurent Ciavaglia(NM RG), Diego Lopez(NFV RG), and Kohei Shiomoto(SDN RG) ========================================== ----------------- 0. Introduction Laurent Ciavaglia, Diego Lopez, and Kohei Shiomoto 5 Minutes (Presentation Summary) Goal of the meeting: investigate problems, challenges and gaps for NFV / SDN. Speakers asked to outline research directions and applicability to IRTF/IETF discussions, working groups and work. (Q&A) No Questions discussed. ----------------- 1. Network operator Challenges for Commercial SDN Environments Ariel Gu (China Mobile) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) DCs with SDN/NFV deployed at large scale, public cloud with 2000 servers and private cloud with 3000 compute nodes. Challenges brought by SND/NFV: - Large amounts of information, fault localization and topology visualization - OAM for new encapsulation like VXLAN Challenges in the management architecture: telemetry is not widely supported by vendors, so not mature to use right now. Information collection: need to be extensible (e.g. large scale) and high-performance Topology of each levels should be displayed dynamically on both tenant and administrator sides. Network monitoring challenges: need to monitor both at tenant and admin levels. E2E fault detection made more complex by the virtualized environment. (Q&A) No Questions discussed. ----------------- 2. Techniques and tools for the management and operation of NFV and SDN networks Evangelos Haleplidis 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) SDN/NFV changes the network from box-oriented management to resource-oriented management. RFC7426 shows a model of architecture for this network. An attempt was made to map RFC7426 onto the ETSI MANO architecture. University of Patras built a DSL using the FORCES spec that allowed defining a network of resources and managing it. Future directions: - Common set of abstractions needed, both for hypervisors and network functions (Q&A) Haomian: Clarification; the abstraction model discussed here is function, not network; Evangelos: Yes, we don’t want to repeat the IETF WG works. There are enough abstraction models, we need a common set of functions. ----------------- 3. SDN Architecture and Use Cases for PCE-based Central Control Adrian Farrel (Olddog) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) Talking about the evolution of PCE, in relation to two drafts in the PCE WG and the TEAS WG. PCE isolates computation from the actual establishing of a path. The larger use case right now is in transport networks. PCE evolution went through one function to a hierarchical architecture to current work on including it in SDN controllers. Working out where the PCE fits in SDN is debatable, although the function clearly exists. PCE-based Central Controller ? using the word “controller” instead of “orchestrator”. This enables an opportunity to have a hybrid, node-by-node and controller-to-node control in the network that functions both horizontally and vertically. (Q&A) Kostas: A minor consideration from me: for PCE is it the first solution in SDN southbound? That’s from historical perspective. The other thing is now there are hierarchical PCEs and a lot of drafts. It seems the content here is to fitting PCEP into a combination of hierarchical/recursive and multi-domain scenario, which has been published a few years ago. Have you looked at the previous work published in this RG? Have you seen some other research work doing this problem instead of PCE? Adrian: Yes, I think you raise a good point from a different angle, on why PCE/PCEP instead of other protocol in the SDN scope. The answer is typically from deployment and from implementation. It would be nice to implement or deploy 10 protocols (if you have PCE)to the same or crossing-spaces. IETF have 3 protocols (PCEP/BGP-LS/RESTYANG or JSON) on the same interface; I am not going to judge the pros and cons for the operators. The slides here is just to show what people already have with PCE. Hopefully research can help announcing that the 3 approach are becoming overlap with each other, and it will be functionally okay or functionally broken, performance okay or performance broken, complexity okay or complexity broken. The industry society, I don’t think they will do that because everybody cares about money. Kostas: I am getting off the tunnel, I didn’t follow much about the progress, is it open source for research community? Adrian: it’s going on. Dan King: yes, in ONOS. Pedro: what is the network/controller model? You talked about PCE as a central controller, is it the same with PCE running as an APP on the controller? Adrian: Well, there are many Hierarchical controller and may be confusing, as people may not have same definition with what controller is. Anyway, controller controls a device. PCE-based box talks via PCEP. ----------------- 4. Network Scheduling in Software-defined Environments Tal Mizrahi (Marvell and Technion) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) What would happen if all the nodes would have synchronized clocks and NMS/controller could tell the nodes to perform operations in a timely-synchronized manner. Using timed network updates could be done in OpenFlow, I2RS, FORCES, etc. Scheduling the updates guarantees no blackholes during updating multiple nodes. Using timestamps instead of time (as they showed at SWFAN’16) could create a number of opportunities. Synchronization is rather expensive. China Mobile have about 1M base stations synchronized at 1 us (reported in the TIC TOC group). The authors proposed TimefFlip, timestamping based TCAM Lookups meaning we could define time applicability for TCAM loops. This is not expensive in term of TCAM resources. Benchmarked on a Marvell switch. New feature in OpenFlow 1.5 for timed updates, and also an experimental RFC for Netconf. Future work: Netconf, I2RS, PCE, FORCES. Dataplane timestamping already considered in SFC, but also of interest for NVO3. (Q&A) Stewart Bryant: Excellent work, however, go back to the idea of flipping and forwarding on the scheduling. We had worked on the similar topic before. The problem we (and everybody) have is we double size the flip, you need one entry for the old stuff and one entry for new. And that will particularly bring you problem when the network is large-scale and cross-forward. Tal: Right, I agree, so if you want to replace the entire flip, you have the old one and the new one in practise, then you are right, there are double buffering. But if you want to do gradually, I mean each time you update a few, you don’t need that. Stewart Bryant: you have to have the whole thing there to deal with such as critical failure to the network. The network requires you, for example, the ring structure, I think it changed. Tal: Right. John Dowdell: Presentation very interesting. On Monday we did make this happen to work. Boris Khasanov: This presentation reminds me a debate that occurs sometime before: which one is better, sync protocol or async protocol? I would love to see the (followup) work; ----------------- 5. Authentication and Authorization in Wired OpenFlow-based Networks using 802.1X Frederik Hauser (Uni-tuebingen) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) Status quo: highly insecure approaches, MAC-based and web portals. They investigated the use of 802.1X in an SDN environment, bringing the Authenticator as an application on the SDN controller which is compliant to standards and makes no changes to the endpoints. Another extension was introducing a network-wide session database for identity based network control, supporting both fine-grained and complex admission rules. Future work: deploy to larger testbeds (Q&A) Laurent: already deployed? In lab or campus? Frederik: It was just in the lab. Laurent: are you going to real deploy it? Frederik: The next step is to moving to bigger test. ----------------- 6. Limitations of Optimization for Multi-site NFV Network Service Delivery Andy Veitch (NetCracker) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) Orchestration for SDN and NFV are separate and independent, while the combination of them is expected to reduce OPEX and CAPEX. They are involved in a number of activities reviewing the state of the art and potential implications for IETF. Two use cases presented, where network, compute, storage are considered all together. (Q&A) Hui Deng: speak for OPEN-O; that project try to integrate SDN/NFV orchestrator; I see here you put the agent into separate SDN/NFV orchestrator. Andy: more historically, you have a PCE/SDN controller that has not have the orchestrator function, and cannot provide virtual services. What the resource are available to Data Centers? What is going on in the network? Thus information is not available then. Hui Deng: looking at the architecture, we do have similar project about drivers to interconnect DCs and provide L2vpn, L3vpn; the challenge would be the bounder issue, especially for update; Andy: agree, the challenge should be response time, as there is a lot of interaction. This time duration also depends on what information do you want to report/receive on the interface. Hui deng: Suggest to have a look at OPEN-O; Andy: there are a few open source projects. Diego: please go offline discussion on open source project. ----------------- 7. SDN Controller Performance Evaluation Yimeng Zhao (telecom-paristech) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) Currently, there are few tools to evaluate the scalability of SDN controllers. High availability is really difficult to prove. Results shown for evaluating centralized controllers. Different python interpreters may affect performance as much as 4 times, and setting such as hyperthreading were found useful for Java-based controllers. Also evaluated distributed controllers (ODL and ONOS). They exhibit control latency due to synchronization. An efficient synchronization system is needed for distributed controllers. (Q&A) Pedro: you compare performance from different implementation; too many dimensions, should compare apple to apple; need more about background information Yimeng: we do have different controller implementations in different scenario, Pedro: I do have some doubt on Boris: Can you help share the report? Yimeng: Yes Diego: like to see the report shared in SDN RG. Samuel Jero (Purdue): what is missing in the presentation is what you did to get these numbers. Are we talking about switching, or routing. Could you tell more about the methodology? can you share more methodology how you get these numbers? Yimeng: several OSes were used to generate packet requests. Part on C-bench and some on vswitch; Samuel: I encourage you to use more realistic conditions. Yimeng: We do need and deeper investigation on testbed. Sara Banks (BMWG co-chair): please look at the use cases from BMWG, and please send the test report to BMWG as well. Uri Ezur (Intel): testing the controller in isolation without end stations is very theoretical. In order to allow the community to reproduce the results, detailed descriptions and identification of bottlenecks would be need to be included in the report. ----------------- 8. VNF Benchmark as a Service Robert Szabo (Ericsson) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) Goals for VBaaS are to extend ETSI NFV by defining complementary functional components that define interfaces and VBaaS workflows. (Q&A) Uri Elzur: try to measure the performance about VNF in different DCs? Do you need to go the resolution to go through the NFV? Did you distinguish between the performance on network and the performance on NFV? Robert: Yes, fully distributing. We have scenarios that fix on one side and compare on the other side. Uri Elzur: would like to see splitting two components. Diego: Please move the discussion offline. ----------------- 9. The abstract art of composing SDN applications Pedro Aranda (Telefonica) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) Management of programmable networks need to evolve. Foreseeable evolution paths include treating network functions as software libraries, better abstractions and integrating machine learning mechanisms. The NetIDE project provides one mechanism to support software development for networks. Application composition is a challenge, as it may create conflicts for accessing basic resources such as flow tables. Better abstractions: Java, Python libraries are not intent, they are just low level abstractions. A discussion on intent definitions, related to work from IBNEMO and ODL-NIC as first steps in the right direction. (Q&A) No Question Discussed. (due to time-limit) ----------------- 10. Control as a minimal common denominator for future networking Artur Hecker (Huawei) 10 Minutes (Presentation Summary) Transition from code from vendors tested on some devices, to untested code from 3rd parties. So how can we go forward from this? SDN promised software-defined networking, but the programmability is actually quite limited to largely traffic switching. Also, there is insufficient protection e.g. the programming model is very basic. They propose “unified control” through a resource-to-resource protocol suite dedicated to establishing and maintaining control but without presuming a specific usage. Two dimensions of unification, spanning both horizontal and vertical interactions. The purpose is to create a capability that allows producing self-* control planes, e.g. a network-OS kernel. (Q&A) Diego:Thanks Artur, please use the list for further discussion. ----------------- 11. Discussions Not Discussed. (due to time-limit) ----------------- 12. Closing Not Discussed. (due to time-limit) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ sdn mailing list sdn@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn -- Laurent Ciavaglia Nokia, Bell Labs +33 160 402 636 route de Villejust - Nozay, France linkedin.com/in/laurent.ciavaglia --------------54757DE3EE0285594767273D Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear NM-RG,

Attached below please find the draft minutes of the IETF96/Berlin meeting, the SDNRG/NFVRG/NMRG joint meeting on Managing Virtualized and Programmable Networks. We appreciate Haomian and Catalin for volunteering to take the minutes and Will for jabber scribe during the meeting. Please let us know if you have any comments and corrections.

Thanks to Kohei for putting together the minutes and this message!

Best regards,
Lisandro and Laurent.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IETF 96 - Joint meeting SDNRG/NFVRG/NMRG on Managing Virtualized and Programmable Networks
Friday, July 22, 2016
10:00-12:00 Friday Morning session I
Session Chairs: Laurent Ciavaglia(NM RG), Diego Lopez(NFV RG), and Kohei Shiomoto(SDN RG)
==========================================

-----------------
0. Introduction
Laurent Ciavaglia, Diego Lopez, and Kohei Shiomoto
5 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
Goal of the meeting: investigate problems, challenges and gaps for NFV / SDN. Speakers asked to outline research directions and applicability to IRTF/IETF discussions, working groups and work.

(Q&A)
No Questions discussed.


-----------------
1. Network operator Challenges for Commercial SDN Environments
Ariel Gu (China Mobile)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
DCs with SDN/NFV deployed at large scale, public cloud with 2000 servers and private cloud with 3000 compute nodes. Challenges brought by SND/NFV:
-    Large amounts of information, fault localization and topology visualization
-    OAM for new encapsulation like VXLAN
Challenges in the management architecture: telemetry is not widely supported by vendors, so not mature to use right now.
Information collection: need to be extensible (e.g. large scale) and high-performance
Topology of each levels should be displayed dynamically on both tenant and administrator sides.
Network monitoring challenges: need to monitor both at tenant and admin levels.
E2E fault detection made more complex by the virtualized environment.

(Q&A)
No Questions discussed.

-----------------
2. Techniques and tools for the management and operation of NFV and SDN networks
Evangelos Haleplidis
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
SDN/NFV changes the network from box-oriented management to resource-oriented management. RFC7426 shows a model of architecture for this network. An attempt was made to map RFC7426 onto the ETSI MANO architecture. University of Patras built a DSL using the FORCES spec that allowed defining a network of resources and managing it.
Future directions:
-    Common set of abstractions needed, both for hypervisors and network functions

(Q&A)
Haomian: Clarification; the abstraction model discussed here is function, not network;
Evangelos: Yes, we don’t want to repeat the IETF WG works. There are enough abstraction models, we need a common set of functions.

-----------------
3. SDN Architecture and Use Cases for PCE-based Central Control
Adrian Farrel (Olddog)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
Talking about the evolution of PCE, in relation to two drafts in the PCE WG and the TEAS WG. PCE isolates computation from the actual establishing of a path. The larger use case right now is in transport networks. PCE evolution went through one function to a hierarchical architecture to current work on including it in SDN controllers. Working out where the PCE fits in SDN is debatable, although the function clearly exists. PCE-based Central Controller ? using the word “controller” instead of “orchestrator”. This enables an opportunity to have a hybrid, node-by-node and controller-to-node control in the network that functions both horizontally and vertically.

(Q&A)
Kostas: A minor consideration from me: for PCE is it the first solution in SDN southbound? That’s from historical perspective. The other thing is now there are hierarchical PCEs and a lot of drafts. It seems the content here is to fitting PCEP into a combination of hierarchical/recursive and multi-domain scenario, which has been published a few years ago. Have you looked at the previous work published in this RG? Have you seen some other research work doing this problem instead of PCE?
Adrian: Yes, I think you raise a good point from a different angle, on why PCE/PCEP instead of other protocol in the SDN scope. The answer is typically from deployment and from implementation. It would be nice to implement or deploy 10 protocols (if you have PCE)to the same or crossing-spaces. IETF have 3 protocols (PCEP/BGP-LS/RESTYANG or JSON) on the same interface; I am not going to judge the pros and cons for the operators. The slides here is just to show what people already have with PCE. Hopefully research can help announcing that the 3 approach are becoming overlap with each other, and it will be functionally okay or functionally broken, performance okay or performance broken, complexity okay or complexity broken. The industry society, I don’t think they will do that because everybody cares about money.
Kostas: I am getting off the tunnel, I didn’t follow much about the progress, is it open source for research community?
Adrian: it’s going on.
Dan King: yes, in ONOS.
Pedro: what is the network/controller model? You talked about PCE as a central controller, is it the same with PCE running as an APP on the controller?
Adrian: Well, there are many Hierarchical controller and may be confusing, as people may not have same definition with what controller is. Anyway, controller controls a device. PCE-based box talks via PCEP.

-----------------
4. Network Scheduling in Software-defined Environments
Tal Mizrahi (Marvell and Technion)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
What would happen if all the nodes would have synchronized clocks and NMS/controller could tell the nodes to perform operations in a timely-synchronized manner. Using timed network updates could be done in OpenFlow, I2RS, FORCES, etc. Scheduling the updates guarantees no blackholes during updating multiple nodes. Using timestamps instead of time (as they showed at SWFAN’16) could create a number of opportunities.
Synchronization is rather expensive. China Mobile have about 1M base stations synchronized at 1 us (reported in the TIC TOC group).
The authors proposed TimefFlip, timestamping based TCAM Lookups meaning we could define time applicability for TCAM loops. This is not expensive in term of TCAM resources. Benchmarked on a Marvell switch.
New feature in OpenFlow 1.5 for timed updates, and also an experimental RFC for Netconf.
Future work: Netconf, I2RS, PCE, FORCES.
Dataplane timestamping already considered in SFC, but also of interest for NVO3.

(Q&A)
Stewart Bryant: Excellent work, however, go back to the idea of flipping and forwarding on the scheduling. We had worked on the similar topic before. The problem we (and everybody) have is we double size the flip, you need one entry for the old stuff and one entry for new. And that will particularly bring you problem when the network is large-scale and cross-forward.
Tal: Right, I agree, so if you want to replace the entire flip, you have the old one and the new one in practise, then you are right, there are double buffering. But if you want to do gradually, I mean each time you update a few, you don’t need that.
Stewart Bryant: you have to have the whole thing there to deal with such as critical failure to the network. The network requires you, for example, the ring structure, I think it changed.
Tal: Right.
John Dowdell: Presentation very interesting. On Monday we did make this happen to work.
Boris Khasanov: This presentation reminds me a debate that occurs sometime before: which one is better, sync protocol or async protocol? I would love to see the (followup) work;

-----------------
5. Authentication and Authorization in Wired OpenFlow-based Networks using 802.1X
Frederik Hauser (Uni-tuebingen)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
Status quo: highly insecure approaches, MAC-based and web portals. They investigated the use of 802.1X in an SDN environment, bringing the Authenticator as an application on the SDN controller which is compliant to standards and makes no changes to the endpoints. Another extension was introducing a network-wide session database for identity based network control, supporting both fine-grained and complex admission rules.
Future work: deploy to larger testbeds

(Q&A)
Laurent: already deployed? In lab or campus?
Frederik: It was just in the lab.
Laurent: are you going to real deploy it?
Frederik: The next step is to moving to bigger test.

-----------------
6. Limitations of Optimization for Multi-site NFV Network Service Delivery
Andy Veitch (NetCracker)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
Orchestration for SDN and NFV are separate and independent, while the combination of them is expected to reduce OPEX and CAPEX. They are involved in a number of activities reviewing the state of the art and potential implications for IETF. Two use cases presented, where network, compute, storage are considered all together.

(Q&A)
Hui Deng: speak for OPEN-O; that project try to integrate SDN/NFV orchestrator; I see here you put the agent into separate SDN/NFV orchestrator.
Andy: more historically, you have a PCE/SDN controller that has not have the orchestrator function, and cannot provide virtual services. What the resource are available to Data Centers? What is going on in the network? Thus information is not available then.
Hui Deng: looking at the architecture, we do have similar project about drivers to interconnect DCs and provide L2vpn, L3vpn; the challenge would be the bounder issue, especially for update;
Andy: agree, the challenge should be response time, as there is a lot of interaction. This time duration also depends on what information do you want to report/receive on the interface.
Hui deng: Suggest to have a look at OPEN-O;
Andy: there are a few open source projects.
Diego: please go offline discussion on open source project.

-----------------
7. SDN Controller Performance Evaluation
Yimeng Zhao (telecom-paristech)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
Currently, there are few tools to evaluate the scalability of SDN controllers. High availability is really difficult to prove. Results shown for evaluating centralized controllers. Different python interpreters may affect performance as much as 4 times, and setting such as hyperthreading were found useful for Java-based controllers. Also evaluated distributed controllers (ODL and ONOS). They exhibit control latency due to synchronization. An efficient synchronization system is needed for distributed controllers.

(Q&A)
Pedro: you compare performance from different implementation; too many dimensions, should compare apple to apple; need more about background information
Yimeng: we do have different controller implementations in different scenario,
Pedro: I do have some doubt on
Boris: Can you help share the report?
Yimeng: Yes
Diego: like to see the report shared in SDN RG.
Samuel Jero (Purdue): what is missing in the presentation is what you did to get these numbers. Are we talking about switching, or routing. Could you tell more about the methodology? can you share more methodology how you get these numbers?
Yimeng: several OSes were used to generate packet requests. Part on C-bench and some on vswitch;
Samuel: I encourage you to use more realistic conditions.
Yimeng: We do need and deeper investigation on testbed.
Sara Banks (BMWG co-chair): please look at the use cases from BMWG, and please send the test report to BMWG as well.
Uri Ezur (Intel): testing the controller in isolation without end stations is very theoretical. In order to allow the community to reproduce the results, detailed descriptions and identification of bottlenecks would be need to be included in the report.

-----------------
8. VNF Benchmark as a Service
Robert Szabo (Ericsson)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
Goals for VBaaS are to extend ETSI NFV by defining complementary functional components that define interfaces and VBaaS workflows.

(Q&A)
Uri Elzur: try to measure the performance about VNF in different DCs? Do you need to go the resolution to go through the NFV? Did you distinguish between the performance on network and the performance on NFV?
Robert: Yes, fully distributing. We have scenarios that fix on one side and compare on the other side.
Uri Elzur: would like to see splitting two components.
Diego: Please move the discussion offline.

-----------------
9. The abstract art of composing SDN applications
Pedro Aranda (Telefonica)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
Management of programmable networks need to evolve. Foreseeable evolution paths include treating network functions as software libraries, better abstractions and integrating machine learning mechanisms. The NetIDE project provides one mechanism to support software development for networks. Application composition is a challenge, as it may create conflicts for accessing basic resources such as flow tables.
Better abstractions:  Java, Python libraries are not intent, they are just low level abstractions. A discussion on intent definitions, related to work from IBNEMO and ODL-NIC as first steps in the right direction.

(Q&A)
No Question Discussed. (due to time-limit)

-----------------
10. Control as a minimal common denominator for future networking
Artur Hecker (Huawei)
10 Minutes

(Presentation Summary)
Transition from code from vendors tested on some devices, to untested code from 3rd parties. So how can we go forward from this?
SDN promised software-defined networking, but the programmability is actually quite limited to largely traffic switching. Also, there is insufficient protection e.g. the programming model is very basic.
They propose “unified control” through a resource-to-resource protocol suite dedicated to establishing and maintaining control but without presuming a specific usage. Two dimensions of unification, spanning both horizontal and vertical interactions. The purpose is to create a capability that allows producing self-* control planes, e.g. a network-OS kernel.

(Q&A)
Diego:Thanks Artur, please use the list for further discussion.

-----------------
11. Discussions
Not Discussed. (due to time-limit)

-----------------
12. Closing
Not Discussed. (due to time-limit)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


_______________________________________________
sdn mailing list
sdn@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sdn



--

Laurent Ciavaglia

Nokia, Bell Labs

 

+33 160 402 636

route de Villejust - Nozay, France

linkedin.com/in/laurent.ciavaglia

--------------54757DE3EE0285594767273D--