Subject: [forces] Your recharter proposal

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:27:07 +0100

Hi ForCES,

I have entered your proposed charter text at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-forces/

Since the meeting in Orlando I haven't heard a word of disquiet from you about
the charter so I am going to assume that you are all happy with what is in/out
within the bounds of understanding when you are in the rough. Therefore, please
shout loud and clear if that is not the case.

I am now going to set about some wordsmithing because the current proposal is
about 25 pages too long :-)

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Ran Giladi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:36:52 +0300

Hi ForCES,

Several years ago, I communicated with some of you, proposing to use ForCES
for SDN (not by this name, it was at the beginning of OpenFlow), claiming
that in order to stay relevant ForCES should target "SDN".

I'd like to use the opportunity and re-propose ForCES-based SDN, as
described in a paper I published in PRESTO'09, one of SIGCOM's workshops:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1592637

The main idea, in short, is to dictate (prescribe, force) a set of LFBs and
their interconnections (described in XML) on a generic data-plane platform,
using ForCES (we added OpenFlow later) LFBs and protocol, thus enabling the
generic platform to function as desired.
Applications can include OAM functionality, auto-learning, DPI, stateful
operations, and more, all (or most) at the data plane. It is a sort of a
superset of OpenFlow capabilities, based on ForCES.

I was able even to generate a Service Oriented Networking - using various
service indicators (in incoming frames) to initiate service functions, most
of them were executed at the data-plane. The first system was tested at
British Telecom Labs (at Ipswich), running an experimental scalable
Ethernet, using Network Processors (EZchip's). Recently my students were
able to port the code to plain Linux system.

If this is of interest, I can provide more info, including the Linux code.

Ran

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:27 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [forces] Your recharter proposal

Hi ForCES,

Since the meeting in Orlando I haven't heard a word of disquiet from you
about the charter so I am going to assume that you are all happy with what
is in/out within the bounds of understanding when you are in the rough.
Therefore, please shout loud and clear if that is not the case.

I am now going to set about some wordsmithing because the current proposal
is about 25 pages too long :-)

Cheers,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
forces mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:09:22 -0700

> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1592637

For those who don't have ACM credentials, try
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2009/workshops/presto/papers/p19.pdf

> If this is of interest, I can provide more info, including the Linux code.

I have been arguing that if OpenFlow evolves past 1.0 (basically L2 only)
and 1.1+ (multi-table 1.0 with additional protocol features and which
basically unimplementable on ASIC h/w), then it will wind up looking very
similar to ForCES. In fact if you look at the proposal that Google made for
what they were calling OF 2.0 at the time, it has quite a bit in common
with ForCES (at the very least architecturally). I'm not sure if that
proposal is publically available anywhere but will check.

I have been spending some time examining the architectural implications of
the OF mode (salient features are separation of control and data planes,
open interface to the forwarding/data plane (OF), and centralized control).
Some of my (controversial) thoughts are on
http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/talks/upperside_sdn_summit_paris_2013.pdf (this
is necessarily abbreviated; see something like
http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/talks/ncrg86.pdf for the longer form...)

--dmm

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:50:30 -0400

Adrian, Jamal,

Thanks. The updated charter looks fine. We are interested to
work on and contribute to virtualization of FE and CE.

In addition, we look forward to work with others on database
sharding ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shard_(database_architecture) )
for inter-LFB and other relevant features/services.

Thanks again.

Best.

Bhumip

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:

> about

---

From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:14:16 +0300

Greetings to the list,

Although I think I have already mentioned that the charter looks good, let
me be explicit and also acknowledge that the updated charter looks fine as
well.

Regards,

Evangelos Haleplidis.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:51 PM
To: [email-masked]; Jamal Hadi Salim
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [forces] Your recharter proposal

Adrian, Jamal,

Thanks again.

Best.

Bhumip

Hi ForCES,

Since the meeting in Orlando I haven't heard a word of disquiet from you
about
the charter so I am going to assume that you are all happy with what is
in/out
within the bounds of understanding when you are in the rough. Therefore,
please
shout loud and clear if that is not the case.

is

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: omar cherkaoui <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:31:10 -0400

Hi
We are highly interested to work on and contribute to virtualization of FE
and CE.

Regards
Omar

-- 
Omar Cherkaoui
UQAM