Subject: [Netconf] sdn bof in taipei

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:30:39 +0200

Hi,

there is a BoF on Software Driven Networks (sdn) in Taipei (Thursday
17:40-19:40) which seems to be related to what has been discussed
under the phrase "network-wide configuration" a while ago on this list
and in the hallways. I am sending this simply to make everyone aware
of this BoF happening at Taipei. For additional information, see
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart#Routing>.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:21:36 -0400

><http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart#Routing>.

SDN ("Software Defined Networking") is a buzz word from openflow.

http://www.openflow.org/wp/2011/03/open-networking-foundation-formed-to-speed-network-innovation/

There's a little content on http://www.openflow.org/wp/documents/, but
it's pretty thin.

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:26:01 +0200

> There's a little content on http://www.openflow.org/wp/documents/, but

Please check the sdnp mailing list - there is discussion of what the
BOF's goals are and NETCONF is popping up once in a while and it seems
at least some sdnp people do not think sdnp is openflow. I think it is
not helpful to repeat the discussion here, so please join the sdnp
mailing list and/or read through the archives.

/js

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:26:16 +0200

In document:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pan-sdn-dc-problem-statement-and-use-cases-00

I see:

         NETCONF/YANG provides a XML-based solution for network device
         configuration. It has been in wide-deployment. By definition, it
         supports server-to-client configuration, but not client-to-server
         alarms or feedback.

That is not correct, is it?

I think I would rather see:

         NETCONF/YANG provides a XML-based solution for network device
         configuration. It has been in wide-deployment. By definition, it
         supports client-to-server configuration, and server-to-client
         alarms or feedback (The servers are the devices/systems to be
         configured, the clients are the network configuration/management
         systems).

Or some such.
Any disagreement with that? Or maybe even a better formulation?

Bert

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:48:02 +0200

> Any disagreement with that? Or maybe even a better formulation?

No disagreement. In the context of SDNP, it might be useful to add
that NETCONF provides support for executing configuration change
transactions over multiple devices.

/js

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:49:19 +0200

Looks right to me - including the addition from Juergen. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF)
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:26 AM
> To: Phil Shafer; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] sdn bof in taipei
> 
> In document:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf