Hi Afrodite-
Thanks for this. Yeah, we should engage more with IETF and/or ETSI,
etc. In the past this has been a bit difficult given lack of time and
to some degree the need to get some of these technologies working and
deployed... These ISGs also tend to be dominated by the commercials who
often have significantly different drivers (and better budgets to
support such activity). It would be nice if we can actually influence
the Cisco's et al with things like NSI - these really are strong
technologies.
As another aside... at an MEF meeting last summer in Paris one of the
Cisco Dev't Directors was speaking...He said in his talk that Cisco
*_/explicitly wants to work with the pre-standards groups/_* doing the
R&D on these types of protocols and service concepts... His specific
reason was that this gained R&E experience is what helps define good
standards. Without it, a "standard" is dramatically less likely to be
used - or useful.
I am heading off to the 4th of July weekend... I will ping you next week
when I return... Maybe you have some time in next few weeks to chat
about this? We really ought to revisit and refine that ISF
document... I think GEANT should still be looking and trying to
understand it and its implications in more detail.
Thanks again
Jerry
On 7/3/19 3:12 PM, Afrodite Sevasti wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> working as in independent expert for the EC on 5G PPP for the last 4
> years, I was repeatedly recommending to stakeholders there that
> industry initiatives with EC funding should evaluate NSI against the
> industry developments on the field (e.g. MEF LSO). As a result, I saw
> some NSI appearances in relevant documents but only in the level of
> state-of-art comparison.
>
> As long as NSI is detached from ETSI, MEF and other industry works, it
> is difficult to get traction.
>
> That’s why (@Jerry) I had recommended a thorough, technical comparison
> and evaluation when I reviewed the ISF document. This is still missing.
>
> best regards
>
> Afrodite
>
> *From:* nsi-wg <nsi-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org> *On Behalf Of *Jerry Sobieski
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 3:01 PM
> *To:* Guy Roberts <guy.roberts(a)geant.org>; chin(a)es.net; Tomohiro Kudoh
> (kudoh(a)nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp) <kudoh(a)nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>; John Macauley
> <macauley(a)es.net>; Jerry Sobieski (jerry(a)sobieski.net)
> <jerry(a)sobieski.net>; Richard Hughes-Jones
> <richard.hughes-jones(a)geant.org>
> *Cc:* nsi-wg(a)ogf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Nsi-wg] rfc8453
>
> Diego was a reviewer for the Integrated Services Framework document we
> did in GEANT last year. He made some good suggestions. That ISF
> document referenced NSI as a key foundational technology in several areas.
>
> Also, NSI was referenced in the 5G PPP Architecture released by the EC
> about 18 months ago. It recommended NSI - but lamented that it did
> not do full virtualization. This could be easily solved if we extend
> NSI to reflect the broader Service Definitions of the generic
> virtualization model being refined by the GNA team. The GVM is in
> fact just an extension of NSI...
>
> The best thing we need to do is to have NSI running in our production
> R&E networks - /_all of them._/ Properly engineered. (Including the
> Open exchange points, regionals, campuses, etc. ) And make it
> available, and promote it for new applications. We have it running
> now, so this is not a hard or difficult thing... This will establish
> NSI as the defacto multi-domain atomic provisioning model for p2p
> circuits.
>
> BR
>
> Jerry
>
> On 7/3/19 1:50 PM, Guy Roberts wrote:
>
> Hi NSI team,
>
> I see that IETF are doing something that looks rather like NSI.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8453
>
> I recognise a couple of names in the contributor list at the end…
> Diego Lopez form Telefonica and Gert Grammel from Juniper. I think
> they are probably both aware of NSI.
>
> Has anyone from NSI tried to engage with the this group?
>
> Guy
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *Guy Roberts PhD*
>
> *Senior Network Architect*
>
> Tel: +44 (0)1223 371316
>
> Mob: +44 (0)7881 336417
>
> Skype: guy1965
>
> Networks • Services • People
>
> Learn more at www.geant.org <http://www.geant.org/>
>
>
>
> GÉANT Vereniging (Association) is registered with the Chamber of
> Commerce in Amsterdam with registration number 40535155 and
> operates in the UK as a branch of GÉANT Vereniging. Registered
> office: Hoekenrode 3, 1102BR Amsterdam, The Netherlands. UK branch
> address: City House, 126-130 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1PQ, UK.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> nsi-wg mailing list
>
> nsi-wg(a)ogf.org <mailto:nsi-wg@ogf.org>
>
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
>
Hi NSI team,
I see that IETF are doing something that looks rather like NSI. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8453
I recognise a couple of names in the contributor list at the end… Diego Lopez form Telefonica and Gert Grammel from Juniper. I think they are probably both aware of NSI.
Has anyone from NSI tried to engage with the this group?
Guy
Guy Roberts PhD
Senior Network Architect
Tel: +44 (0)1223 371316
Mob: +44 (0)7881 336417
Skype: guy1965
Networks • Services • People
Learn more at www.geant.org<http://www.geant.org/>
GÉANT Vereniging (Association) is registered with the Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam with registration number 40535155 and operates in the UK as a branch of GÉANT Vereniging. Registered office: Hoekenrode 3, 1102BR Amsterdam, The Netherlands. UK branch address: City House, 126-130 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1PQ, UK.
