headers
Tony Tauber | 1 Jan 2003 14:16

Re: Use Cases of Network Operation of LAP

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, David Meyer wrote:

> 	Bert,
>
> >> I have not see any comment/question or discussion on the below!
> >>
> >> What does that mean:
> >>  - we have not had time to read this?
>
> 	I had forgotten I had read this one.

I have read much of it but want to do a detailed mark-up/commentary
but haven't gotten around to it yet.  Apologies.  I plan to do so soon
and reply to the authors.

> >>  - nobody is interested?
>
> 	Its not that I'm not interested, however, I am struggling
> 	with the point of this document.
>
> >>  - silence means we agree that this is a good document and
> >>    that it represents real scenarios as we see with Large
> >>    Access Providers.
>
> 	Nope. Not at all. Rather, I would say it looks like a M&P
> 	document that many providers have, but I don't see it as
> 	an IETF document.

Not sure how it squares with people's ideas of IETF documents or work
but I feel there is value having seen too scattershot and sometimes
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Chen, Weijing | 2 Jan 2003 18:51
Picon

RE: Use Cases of Network Operation of LAP

I concur Tony's comment.  We have seen too many network management and
operation systems that fall way short of our daily operation need.  In other
hand, service provider is busy about their own business and hasn't
communicated their need to vendor community.  As stated in the draft, LAP
has a need which is very demanding and challenge.  It is especially true for
provider like us.  The draft is trying to illustrate the need of LAP in IETF
term, and hope vendor community will use it as a guide to build better
system, and/or new (better?) protocol.

Regards,

Weijing Chen

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Tauber [mailto:ttauber <at> genuity.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 7:17 AM
To: David Meyer
Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); 'ops-nm <at> ops.ietf.org'; Chen, Weijing; Randy Bush
Subject: Re: Use Cases of Network Operation of LAP

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, David Meyer wrote:

> 	Bert,
>
> >> I have not see any comment/question or discussion on the below!
> >>
> >> What does that mean:
> >>  - we have not had time to read this?
>
> 	I had forgotten I had read this one.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andy Bierman | 2 Jan 2003 19:37
Picon
Favicon

RE: Use Cases of Network Operation of LAP

At 03:51 PM 12/31/2002 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>OPS-NM members....
>
>I have not see any comment/question or discussion on the below!
>
>What does that mean:
> - we have not had time to read this?
> - nobody is interested?
> - silence means we agree that this is a good document and
>   that it represents real scenarios as we see with Large
>   Access Providers.
> - we're tired and we are not interested in reading?
>
>Pls answer/comment if at all possible.

I think this draft can be useful to vendors to assess the needs
of large access providers.  There are a couple concerns I have
though:

1) NM applications vs. device information
The draft does not make much distinction between NMS and device
requirements.  This is important because the IETF does not
standardize NMS applications in any way.  In many places,
the desired device attributes listed are fairly clear, but
in some places this is not the case. The draft does not
specify a data model, such as MIBs.  It may be useful
to determine if a standard MIB object exists which corresponds
to each device attribute, in order to reduce semantic ambiguity and
provide a checklist related to commonly used monitoring technology.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Sharon Barkai | 20 Jan 2003 18:21

Discussion group for Service Centric Management

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner <at> ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

Looking to survey interest in standardization participation
of the SCMP protocol. In essence SCMP is an end-to-end horizontal 
protocol aimed to support the mapping of connectivity services to
network technologies.

Most customer packets will cross 3-5 networks and 9-15 protocols before
reaching the target ISP/VPN. The SCMP framework aims to discover, allocate,
and monitor the network resources involved, in the context of end-to-end
services. SCMP aims to map services to very-large and very dynamic networks.

SCMP as an extra network based tier significantly simplifies the mapping
of work-flow applications to infrastructure. Applications such as Fault 
Management, Inventory Management, and Order Management are better integrated
to the network. SCMP standard based distribution will help in deploying 
interoperable and inter-carrier service management.

An overview description of SCMP can be found in:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-barkai-scmp-00.txt

Parties interested in the subject are welcome to join:
SCMP <at> sheernetworks.com

Kind Regards,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane