ANIMA | P. Peloso |
Internet-Draft | L. Ciavaglia |
Intended status: Standards Track | Nokia |
Expires: September 22, 2016 | March 21, 2016 |
A Day in the Life of an Autonomic Function
draft-peloso-anima-autonomic-function-01.txt
While autonomic functions are often pre-installed and integrated with the network elements they manage, this is not a mandatory condition. Allowing autonomic functions to be dynamically installed and to control resources remotely enables more versatile deployment approaches and enlarges the application scope to virtually any legacy equipment. The analysis of autonomic functions deployment schemes through the installation, instantiation and operation phases allows constructing a unified life-cycle and identifying new required functionality. Thus, the introduction of autonomic technologies will be facilitated, the adoption much more rapid and broad. Operators will benefit from multi-vendor, inter-operable autonomic functions with homogeneous operations and superior quality, and will have more freedom in their deployment scenarios.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
While autonomic functions are often pre-installed and integrated with the network elements they manage, this is not a mandatory condition. Allowing autonomic functions to be dynamically installed and to control resources remotely enables more versatile deployment approaches and enlarges the application scope to virtually any legacy equipment. The analysis of autonomic functions deployment schemes through the installation, instantiation and operation phases allows constructing a unified life-cycle and identifying new required functionality.
An Autonomic Service Agent (ASA) controls resources of one or multiple Network Elements (NE), e.g. the interfaces of a router for a Load Balancing ASA. An ASA is a software, thus an ASA need first to be installed and to execute on a host machine in order to control resources.
There are 3 properties applicable to the installation of ASAs:
These three properties provide the operator a great variety of ASA deployment schemes as they decorrelate the evolution of the infrastructure layer from the evolution of the autonomic function layer. Depending on the capabilities (and constraints) of the infrastructure and of the autonomic functions, the operator can devise the schemes that will better fit to its deployment objectives and practices.
Based on the above definitions, the ASA deployment process can be formulated as a multi-level/criteria matching problem.
The primary level, present in the three phases, consists in matching the objectives of the operator and the capabilities of the infrastructure. The secondary level criteria may vary from phase to phase. One goal of the document is thus to identify the specific and common functionality among these three phases.
This draft will explore the implications of these properties along each of the 3 phases namely Installation, Instantiation and Operation. This draft will then provide a synthesis of these implications in requirements for functionalities and life-cycle of ASAs. Beforehand, the following section will deal with the network operator's point of view with regards of autonomic networks.
Only few operators would dare relying on a pure autonomic network, without setting objectives to it. From an operator to the other, the strategy of network management vary, as much for historical reasons (experience, best-practice, tools in-place, organization), as much for differences in the operators goals (business, trade agreements, politics, risk policy). Additionally, network operators do not necessarily perform a uniform network management across the different domains composing their network infrastructure. Hence their objectives in terms of availability, load, and dynamics vary depending on the nature of the domains and of the types of services running over each of those domains.
To manage the networks according to the above variations, ASAs need to capture the underlying objectives implied by the operators. The instantiation phase is the step in-between installation and operation, where the network operator determine the initial ASA behavior according to its objectives. This step allows the network operator to determine which ASAs should execute on which domains of its network, with appropriate settings. At this stage, thanks to the intent-policy setting objectives to groups of ASAs, the network management should become far simpler (and less error-prone) than setting low-level configurations for each individual network resources.
This paragraph describes the following example of operator intents with regards to deployments of autonomic functions. The autonomic function involved is a load balancing function, which uses monitoring results of links load to autonomously modify the links metrics in order to balance the load over the network. The example is divided into steps corresponding to an increasing implication of the operator in the definition of objectives/intents to the deployment of autonomic functions:
This short example illustrates some specificities of deployment scenarios, the sub-section below sets itself at providing a more exhaustive view of the different deployment scenarios.
The following scenarios illustrate the different ways the autonomic functions could be deployed in an ANIMA context. Subsequently, requirements for the autonomic functions and requirements these autonomic functions impose on other components of the ANIMA ecosystem are listed.
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | : Autonomic Function 1 : | | ASA 1.1 : ASA 1.2 : ASA 1.3 : ASA 1.4 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + : : : : + - - - - - - - - - - - - - + : : | Autonomic Function 2 | : : | ASA 2.2 : ASA 2.3 | : : + - - - - - - - - - - - - - + : : : : + - - - - - - - - - - - - - + : + - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Autonomic Function 3 | : | Autonomic Function 4 | | ASA 3.1 : ASA 3.2 | : | ASA 4.3 : ASA 4.4 | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - + : + - - - - - - - - - - - - - + : : : + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + | Autonomic Networking Infrastructure | + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + +--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+ | Node 1 |-------| Node 2 |-------| Node 3 |-------| Node 4 | +--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+ : +--------+
Figure 1: High level view of an Autonomic Network
These various deployment scenarios are better understood by referring to the High level view of an Autonomic Network, Figure 1 of [I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model]. The figure is slightly extended for the purpose of the demonstration as follows:
Figure 1 depicts 4 Nodes, 4 Autonomic Functions and 10 Autonomic Service Agents. Let's list assumptions with regards of these elements.
Starting with nodes,
Pursuing with Autonomic Functions,
Completing with individual Autonomic Service Agents, those are pieces of software:
The last three points being largely questionable are marked as questions.
+ - - - + +-------------+ | ASA |------>| NMS *<--* + - - - + +------^------+ | | | | | | | +------V------+ | | +-------->| Controller | | | +------^------+ | +---------------------+ | | | | + - - - + | | +------V------+ | | | ASA | Node OS | +------------>| Node OS *<--* | + - - - + | +------^------+ +--------------*------+ | | +------V------+ +-----*------+ | Node | | Node | +-------------+ +------------+
Figure 2: Interaction possibilities between ASA and Resources
The figure below illustrates how an ASA interacts with a node that the ASA manages. The left side depicts external interactions, through exchange of commands towards interfaces either to the node OS (e.g. via SNMP or NetConf), or to the controller (e.g. (G)MPLS, SDN, ...), or to the NMS. The right side depicts the case of the ASA embedded inside the Node OS.
Regarding the operators, at this point we can try to list few requirements they may have with regards with the Autonomic Functions and their management...
Before being able to instantiate and run ASAs, the operator must first provision the infrastructure with the sets of ASA software corresponding to its needs and objectives. The provisioning of the infrastructure is realized in the installation phase and consists in installing (or checking the availability of) the pieces of software of the different ASA classes in a set of Installation Hosts.
As mentioned in the Problem statement section, an Autonomic Function Agent (ASA) controls resources of one or multiple Network Elements (NE), e.g. the interfaces of a router for a Load Balancing ASA. An ASA is a software, thus an ASA need first to be installed and to execute on a host machine in order to control resources.
There are 3 properties applicable to the installation of ASAs:
These three properties are very important in the context of the installation phase as their variations condition how the ASA class could be installed on the infrastructure.
In the installation phase, the operator's goal is to install ASA classes on Installation Hosts such that, at the moment of instantiation, the corresponding ASAs can control the sets of target resources. The complexity of the installation phase come from the number of possible configurations for the matching between the ASA classes capabilities (e.g. what types of resources it can control, what types of hosts it can be installed on...), the Installation Hosts capabilities (e.g. support dynamic installation, location and reachability...) and the operator's needs (what deployment schemes are favored, functionality coverage vs. cost trade-off...).
For example, in the coupled mode, the ASA host machine and the network element are the same. The ASA is installed on the network element and control the resources via interfaces and mechanisms internal to the network element. An ASA MUST be installed on the network element of every resource controlled by the ASA. The identification of the resources controlled by an ASA is straightforward: the resources are the ones of the network element.
In the decoupled mode, the ASA host machine is different from the network element. The ASA is installed on the host machine and control the resources via interfaces and mechanisms external to the network element. An ASA can be installed on an arbitrary set of candidate Installation hosts, which can be defined explicitly by the network operator or according to a cost function. A key benefit of the decoupled mode is to allow an easier introduction of autonomic functions on existing (legacy) infrastructure. The decoupled mode also allows de-correlating the installation requirements (compatible host machines) from the infrastructure evolution (NEs addition and removal, change of NE technology/version...).
The operator's goal may be defined as a special type of intent, called the Installation phase intent. The details of the content and format of this proposed intent are left open and for further study.
Inputs are:
The main output of the installation phase is an up-to-date directory of installed ASAs which corresponds to [list of ASA classes] installed on [list of installation Hosts]. This output is also useful for the coordination function and corresponds to the static interaction map.
The condition to validate in order to pass to next phase is to ensure that [list of ASA classes] are well installed on [list of installation Hosts]. The state of the ASA at the end of the installation phase is: installed. (not instantiated). The following commands or messages are foreseen: install(list of ASA classes, Installation_target_Infrastructure, ASA class placement function), and un-install (list of ASA classes).
Once the ASAs are installed on the appropriate hosts in the network, these ASA may start to operate. From the operator viewpoint, an operating ASA means the ASA manages the network resources as per the objectives given. At the ASA local level, operating means executing their control loop/algorithm.
But right before that, there are two things to take into consideration. First, there is a difference between 1. having a piece of code available to run on a host and 2. having an agent based on this piece of code running inside the host. Second, in a coupled case, determining which resources are controlled by an ASA is straightforward (the determination is embedded), in a decoupled mode determining this is a bit more complex (hence a starting agent will have to either discover or be taught it).
The instantiation phase of an ASA covers both these aspects: starting the agent piece of code (when this does not start automatically) and determining which resources have to be controlled (when this is not obvious).
Through this phase, the operator wants to control its autonomic network in two things:
Additionally in this phase, the operator may want to set objectives to autonomic functions, by configuring the ASAs technical objectives.
The operator's goal can be summarized in an instruction to the ANIMA ecosystem matching the following pattern:
Inputs are:
Outputs are:
The instructions described in section 4.2 could be either:
This set of instructions can be materialized through a message that is named an Instance Mandate. Instance Mandates are described in the requirements part of this document, which lists the needed fields of such a message (see Section 6.3 - ASA Instance Mandate).
The conclusion of this instantiation phase is a ready to operate ASA (or interacting set of ASAs), then this (or those) ASA(s) can describe themselves by depicting which are the resources they manage and what this means in terms of metrics being monitored and in terms of actions that can be executed (like modifying the parameters values). A message conveying such a self description is named an Instance Manifest. Instance Manifests are described in the requirements part of this document, which lists the needed fields of such a message (see Section 6.4 - ASA Instance Manifest).
Though the operator may well use such a self-description "per se", the final goal of such a description is to be shared with other ANIMA entities like:
Note: This section is to be further developed in future revisions of the document.
During the Operation phase, the operator can:
During the Operation phase, running ASAs can interact the one with the other:
During the Operation phase, running ASAs are expected to apply coordination schemes
Based on the phases described above, this section defines formally the different states experienced by Autonomic Function Agents during their complete life-cycle.
The drawing of the life-cycle presented below shows both the states and the events/messages triggering the state changes. For simplification purposes, this sketch does not display the transitory states which correspond to the handling of the messages.
The installation and Instantiation phase will be concluded by ASA reaching respectively Installed and Instantiated states.
+--------------+ Undeployed ------>| |------> Undeployed | Installed | +-->| |---+ Mandate | +--------------+ | Receives a is revoked | +--------------+ | Mandate +---| |<--+ | Instantiated | +-->| |---+ set | +--------------+ | set down | +--------------+ | up +---| |<--+ | Operational | | | +--------------+
Figure 3: Life cycle of an Autonomic Function Agent
Here are described the successive states of ASA.
The messages are described in the following sections.
An ASA class is a piece of software that contains the computer program of an Autonomic Function Agent.
In order to install and instantiate appropriately an autonomic function in its network, the operator needs to know which are the characteristics of this piece of software.
This section details a format for an ASA class manifest, which is (a machine-readable) description of both the autonomic function and the piece of code that executes the function.
Field Name | Type | Description |
---|---|---|
ID | Struct | A unique identifier made out of at least a Function Name, Version and Provider Name (and Release Date). |
Description | Struct | A multi-field description of the function performed by the ASA, it is meant to be read by the operator and can point to URLs, user-guides, feature descriptions. |
Installation properties | 3 Booleans | Whether the ASA is dynamically installable, can be decoupled from the NE and can manage multiple resources from a single instance (see Section 1 - Problem statement). |
Possible Hosts | OS... | Lists the OS/Machines on which the ASA can be executed. [Only if ASA is dynamically installable] |
Network Segment | NetSegment... | Lists the network segments on which the autonomic function is applicable (e.g. IP backbone versus RAN). |
Manageable Equipments | Equipments... | Lists the nodes/resources that this piece of code can manage (e.g. ALU 77x routers, Cisco CRS-x routers, Huawei NEXE routers). |
Autonomic Loop Type | Enum | States what is the type of loop MAPE-K and whether this loop can be halted in the course of its execution. |
Acquired Inputs | Raw InfoSpec... | Lists the nature of information that an ASA agent may acquire from the managed resource(s) (e.g. the links load). |
External Inputs | Raw InfoSpec... | Lists the nature of information that an ASA agent may require/wish from other ASA in the ecosystem that could provide such information/knowledge. |
Possible Actions | Raw ActionSpec | Lists the nature of actions that an ASA agent may enforce on ASA the managed resource(s) (e.g. modify the links metrics). |
Technical Objectives Description | Technical Objective Spec... | Lists the type of technical objectives that can be handled/received by the ASA (e.g. a max load of links). |
An ASA instance is the ASA agent: a running piece of software of an ASA class. A software agent is a persistent, goal-oriented computer program that reacts to its environment and interacts with other elements of the network.
In order to install and instantiate appropriately an autonomic function in its network, the operator may specify to ASA instances what they are supposed to do: in term of which resources to manage and which objective to reach.
This section details a format for an ASA Instance Mandate, which is (a machine-readable) set of instructions sent to create autonomic functions out of ASA.
Field Name | Type | Description |
---|---|---|
ASA class Pattern | Struct | A pattern matching the ID (or part of it) of ASAs being the target of the Mandate. This field makes sense only for broadcast mandates (see end of this section). |
Managed Resources | ResourcesId... | The list of resources to be managed by the ASA (e.g. their IP@ or MAC@ or any other relevant ID). |
ID of Coord | Interface Id | The interface to the coordination system in charge of this autonomic function. |
Reporting Policy | Policy | A policy describing which entities expect report from ASA, and which are the conditions of these reports (e.g. time wise and content wise) |
An ASA instance mandate could be either:
Once the ASAs are properly instantiated, the operator and its managing system need to know which are the characteristics of these ASAs.
This section details a format for an ASA instance manifest, which is (a machine-readable) description of either an ASA or a set of ASAs gathered into an autonomic function.
Field Name | Type | Description |
---|---|---|
ASA Class ID | Struct | A unique identifier made out of at least a Function Name, Version and Provider Name (and Release Date). |
ASA Instance ID | Long | A unique Id of the ASA instance (if the ASA instance manifest gathers multiple ASAs working together, this would be a list). |
Hosts | Resource ID | ID of the Machines on which the ASA executes. |
Managed Resources | ResourcesId... | The list of resources effectively managed by the ASA (e.g. their IP@ or MAC@ or any other relevant ID). |
Acquired Inputs | Instance InfoSpec... | Lists information that this ASA agent may acquire from the managed resource(s) (e.g. the links load over links with ID x and y). |
External Inputs | Instance InfoSpec... | Lists information that this ASA agent requires from the ecosystem (e.g. the links load prediction over links with ID x and y). |
Possible Actions | Instance ActionSpec | Lists actions that this ASA agent may enforce on its managed resource(s) (e.g. modify the links metrics over links x and y). |
In the previous parts of this document, we have seen successive operations pertaining to the management of autonomic functions. These phases involve different entities such as the ASAs, the ASA Hosts and the ASA Management function. This function serves as the interface between the network operator and its managed infrastructure (i.e. the autonomic network). The ASA management function distributes instructions to the ASAs such as the ASA Instance Mandate, ASA set up/set down commands and also trigger the ASA installation inside ASA Hosts. This function is likely to be co-located or integrated with the function responsible for the management of the Intents.
In this first version, we do not prescribe any requirements on the way the ASA Management function should be implemented, neither the various deployment options of such a function and neither on the way ACP or GRASP could be extended to interact with this function. We believe these design and specifications work should be first discussed and analyzed by the working group.
GRASP and ACP seems to be the best (and currently only) candidates to convey the following messages between the ASA Management function and the ASAs:
These section concludes with requests to GRASP protocol designers in order to handle the 3 last messages of the list above. These 3 messages form the minimal set of features needed to guarantee some control on the behavior of ASAs to network operators.
A mechanism similar to the bootstrapping one would usefully achieve discovery of pre-installed ASAs, and possibly provide those with a default Instance Mandate.
A mechanism to achieve dynamic installation of ASAs compatible with ACP and GRASP remains to be identified.
In the case of decoupled ASAs, even more for the ones supporting multiplicity, when a Mandate is broadcast (i.e. requesting the Instantiation of an autonomic function to manage a bunch of resources), these ASAs require synchronization to determine which agent(s) will manage which resources. Proper ACP/GRASP messages supporting such a mechanism have to be identified together with protocol authors.
To control when an ASA runs (and possibly how it runs), the operator needs the capacity to start and stop ASAs. That is why an imperative command type of message is requested from GRASP.
Additionally this type of message could also be used to specify how the ASA is meant to run, e.g. whether its control loop is subdued to some constraints in terms of pace of execution or rhythm of execution (once a second, once a minute, once a day...)
Below a suggestion for GRASP:
In fragmentary CDDL, an Imperative message follows the pattern:
imperative-message = [M_IMPERATIVE, session-id, initiator, objective]
...
To know what an ASA does to the network, the operator needs to have the information of the elements either monitored or modified by the ASA, hence this ASA should disclose those.
The disclosing should take the form of a ASA Instance Manifest (see Section 6.4 - ASA Instance Manifest), which could be conveyed inside a GRASP discovery message, hence the fields of the ASA Instance Manifest would be conveyed inside the objective.
At this stage there are two options:
...
To determine which ASA controls which equipment (or vice-versa which equipments are controlled by which ASAs), the operators needs to be able to instruct ASA before the end of their bootstrap procedure.
These instructions sent to ASA during bootstrapping should take the format of an ASA Instance Mandate (see Section 6.3 - ASA Instance Mandate). This ASA Instance Mandate are sorts of Intents, and as GRASP is meant to handle Intents in a near future, it would be beneficial to already identify which sort of GRASP message are meant to be used by Intent in order to already define those. An option could be to reuse the Imperative messages defined above.
...
This draft was written using the xml2rfc project.
This draft content builds upon work achieved during UniverSelf FP7 EU project.
This memo includes no request to IANA.
TBD
[I-D.ciavaglia-anima-coordination] | Ciavaglia, L. and P. Peloso, "Autonomic Functions Coordination", Internet-Draft draft-ciavaglia-anima-coordination-00, July 2015. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
[I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model] | Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L., Liu, B., Jeff, J. and J. Strassner, "A Reference Model for Autonomic Networking", Internet-Draft draft-behringer-anima-reference-model-04, October 2015. |
[RFC7575] | Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S. and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575, DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015. |