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@ogf.org> *On Behalf Of *Jerry Sobieski *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 3:01 PM *To:* Guy Roberts <guy.roberts@geant.org>; chin@es.net; Tomohiro Kudoh (kudoh@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp) <kudoh@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>; John Macauley <macauley@es.net>; Jerry Sobieski (jerry@sobieski.net) <jerry@sobieski.net>; Richard Hughes-Jones <richard.hughes-jones@geant.org> *Cc:* nsi-wg@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@ogf.org <mailto:nsi-wg@ogf.org>
Hi all, Engaging with ETSI should be possible, as OGF has an MoU with ETSI - we've had some cross-pollination in the past, and I'd think it should be possible to send someone from NSI to ETSI with an OGF hat. Another option might be ISO/IEC, although we may want additional advice on this because OGF's MoU is with SC38 (cloud and distributed computing) and I have personally less visibility of networking standardisation in ISO/IEC. Cheers --jens On 03/07/2019 14:59, Jerry Sobieski wrote:
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@ogf.org> *On Behalf Of *Jerry Sobieski *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 3:01 PM *To:* Guy Roberts <guy.roberts@geant.org>; chin@es.net; Tomohiro Kudoh (kudoh@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp) <kudoh@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>; John Macauley <macauley@es.net>; Jerry Sobieski (jerry@sobieski.net) <jerry@sobieski.net>; Richard Hughes-Jones <richard.hughes-jones@geant.org> *Cc:* nsi-wg@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@ogf.org <mailto:nsi-wg@ogf.org>
_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
participants (2)
-
Jensen, Jens (STFC,RAL,SC) -
Jerry Sobieski