[Nsi-wg] rfc8453

Thu Jul 4 05:08:36 EDT 2019

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 at ogf.org> *On Behalf Of *Jerry Sobieski
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 3:01 PM
>> *To:* Guy Roberts <guy.roberts at geant.org>; chin at es.net; Tomohiro 
>> Kudoh (kudoh at nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp) <kudoh at nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>; John 
>> Macauley <macauley at es.net>; Jerry Sobieski (jerry at sobieski.net) 
>> <jerry at sobieski.net>; Richard Hughes-Jones 
>> <richard.hughes-jones at geant.org>
>> *Cc:* nsi-wg at 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 at ogf.org  <mailto:nsi-wg at ogf.org>
>>
>>     https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20190704/f2197d31/attachment.html>