Internet DRAFT - draft-doolan-ccamp-saoc-in-actn-poi
draft-doolan-ccamp-saoc-in-actn-poi
CCAMP Working Group P. J. Doolan
Internet-Draft H. Bock
Intended status: Informational Infinera
Expires: 25 April 2024 23 October 2023
Security and Operational concerns in ACTN POI work
draft-doolan-ccamp-saoc-in-actn-poi-00
Abstract
Work in CCAMP on POI in ACTN is at an early stage and does not yet
seem to have adequately described some of the operational or security
concerns which may impact the real world applicability of any
resulting work product
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted 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 https://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 25 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Doolan & Bock Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SAOC-IN-ACTN-POI October 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
CCAMP is actively considering two Internet Drafts
[ACTNPOI][DavisPPCA] which target the same problem space. For the
purpose this brief draft we describe that problem space as automation
of the managment of networks composed of combined packet and optical
networking components; more simply management of the IPoDWM concept
that is currently enjoying a renaissance in interest. We say
renaissance because this current work is not the first to address the
topic, as far back as 2015 the BBF wrote a technical report [TR319]
on the subject.
[ACTNPOI] focuses on Traffic Engineered services supported by the
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) architecture, in
contrast [DavisPPCA] focuses more on the availability of pluggable
coherent optical modules and the control architecture needed to
support them. Both IDs describe SDN enabled solutions to the
automation problem. Early on in [ACTNPOI] the authors describe a key
aspect of the PMO of these networks: " In many existing network
deployments, the packet and the optical networks are engineered and
operated independently" . We believe that to be the most important
insight about this problem space and one we feel has not been
adequately emphasised in these works so far and has received similar
lack of serious attention in other SDO's and Fora.
Doolan & Bock Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SAOC-IN-ACTN-POI October 2023
The relentless progress that has led to the availability of Small
Form Factor pluggable optics which motivate both these drafts
continues. As a result we are seeing the emergence of what for want
of a better term are being called 'smart plugs'. Such devices are
already being deployed and we believe this work CCAMP is progressing
should acknowledge this and consider applicability of this work to
the automation of management of them as well. We note for
information that the OIF [OIF] has project to develop a white paper
on the management of smart plugs which they intend to publish in
2024.
All ID's are required to have a Security Considerations section and
we note that both drafts do but neither address matters we believe to
be of conern. ID's are not required to contain an Operational
Considerations section, [ACTNPOI] does but it is brief and does not
address matters we believe to be of concern. It could be argued that
the use cases in [DavisPPCA] essentially constitute operational
considerations but again we do not believe they sufficiently address
the matters of concern to us.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Discussion
The resurgence of interest in IPoDWDM enabled by pluggable optical
modules means it is being discussed in TIP, ONF, ITU, IETF. Recent
discussions with a number of industry participants have indicated to
us that there’s a problem with the solutions proposed in these two
drafts, indeed perhaps with SDN in general: the benefits of automated
management espoused in these drafts are unattainable, or at risk,
because of PMO in some of the intended user community.
We could say “OK that’s the way it is, it’s not our problem, there’s
nothing we can do about it”. That, to us, seems short sighted. At
the very least we believe that Informational RCFs should expose the
potential problem and beyond that we believe they might point at a
solution; we do not believe the problem to be insoluble but we
concede we are still exploring it and anticipate further
contributions as our understanding develops
Doolan & Bock Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SAOC-IN-ACTN-POI October 2023
The separate engineering and operation of packet and optical networks
that together provide a service for an operator or its customers are,
reasonably we believe, claimed to cause inefficiences that lead to
higher opex than might be otherwise incurred and this is one of the
motivations behind much of the SDN work of the last decade. Combined
control of the two infrastructures is viewed as less costly. The
authors of this draft subscribe to the view that sufficient
architectural and protocol work has occured over the last decade or
so, to claim that combined control should be possible from a
technical perspective. We have recently begun to hear rumblings in
multiple venues, of operational and security concerns that question
the operationalization of solutions based on that work..
Our industry is discussing a small number of different approaches for
control of DWDM optical interfaces which differ specifically with
respect to which entity is allowed to control setting parameters for
those interfaces. One approach, described by TIP [TIP] MANTRA in
their whitepaper [MANTRA] and in [ACTNPOI], only allows write access
to equipment hosting pluggables from one single SDN control entity –
which they call the IP or L3 controller. While they do consider the
option to allow read-only access from a DWDM SDN controller to that
host equipment, this means that both IP controller and host SW play a
role in setting DWDM physical layer parameters. While this creates
clarity on the ownership of the parameters and means that all aspects
of security (e.g. authentication, user management, …) remain
unchanged for the host to IP controller interaction, it does mean
that host SW, IP controller SW and DWDM control entities as well as
pluggable firmware are all coupled together. This jeopardizes that
benefit network operators are looking for in disaggregated, open
networking which is fast, decoupled innovation in different network
functions(hardware and software).
[Borraccini] and [DavisPPCA] add an additional option that separates
DWDM control aspects from packet control by partitioning the write
access via control API into packet layer and DWDM layer functions.
This decouples controller SW releases between the two layers. While
it simplifies introduction of new features, simplifies the
interaction between pluggables and DWDM / OLS control it also means
that operationally, the additional control SW has to be accepted by
ops teams, in addition host SW still remains coupled to pluggable
feature evolution.
Doolan & Bock Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SAOC-IN-ACTN-POI October 2023
Additional approaches under discussion involve an even more
fundamental separation of control aspects by host independent
management e.g. the whitepaper under development in OIF. Direct
access from DWDM control SW to pluggables’ DWDM functions would
completely decouple SW evolution between the layers and greatly
simplify technology evolution over time. While this new approach
shows great promise, it’s operational aspects still need to be
clarified.
We believe that an Informational RFC on POI should describe and
investigate these approaches more fully than the current drafts do at
this stage. We further think an Informational draft is an
appropriate vehicle to advocate for solutions that offer the maximum
flexibility, i.e. solutions that do not preclude operational choices
that the operators business structure or practices may otherwise be
able to exploit. Stated differently it should provide a framework
that describes the small number of important operational models that
are distinguishablel in this problem space. Based on that belief and
the forgoing discussion we offer proposals as follow.
3. Proposals
We respectfully request that CCAMP consider the actions listed below
as a result of discussion of this draft.
* Combine [ACTNPOI] and [DavisPPCA]
* Include an Operational Considerations section in the new combined
draft that addresses the matters raised herein.
* Include appropriate matters raised herein in the mandatory
Security section
* Liaise to TIP, ONF and SG15 soliciting comment on the issues
raised herein.
* Include management of smart plugs in the scope of this work. [We
will provide a draft on this topic].
* Liaise to OIF CCAMP's interest in management of smart plugs topic
and ask for access to early drafts of that work.
4. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Doolan & Bock Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SAOC-IN-ACTN-POI October 2023
5. Operational Considerations
This document indicates where operational and business concerns may
be in conflict with security policy and render viable technical
solutions impotent to automate the integrated management of combined
packet and optical network.
6. Security Considerations
This document indicates where security concerns may conflict with or
impact operational and business desires to automate the combined
management of combined packet and optical network.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[DavisPPCA]
Davis, et al, N., "ID: Control Architecture of Optical
Pluggables in Packet Devices Under ACTN POI Framework",
2023.
[ACTNPOI] Peruzzini, et al, F., "ID: Applicability of Abstraction
and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) to
Packet Optical Integration (POI)", 2023.
[TR319] Broadband Forum, BBF., "Achieving Packet Network
Optimization using DWDM Interfaces - Physically Separated
Model", 2016,
<https://www.broadband-forum.org/pdfs/tr-319.2-1-0-0.pdf>.
[Borraccini]
Borraccini, et al, G., "QoT-Driven Optical Control and
Data Plane in Multi-Vendor Disaggregated Networks, M4F.5,
OFC 2022", 2022.
Doolan & Bock Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SAOC-IN-ACTN-POI October 2023
[MANTRA] TIP, "IPoWDM convergent SDN architecture - Motivation,
technical definition & challenges", 2023,
<https://telecominfraproject.com/wp-content/uploads/
TIP_OOPT_MANTRA_IP_over_DWDM_Whitepaper-Final-
Version3.pdf>.
[TIP] TIP, "Telecom Infra Project", 2023,
<https://telecominfraproject.com/>.
[OIF] OIF, "Optical Internetworking Forum", 2023,
<https://oiforum.com/>.
Authors' Addresses
P. Doolan
Infinera
United States of America
Email: pdoolan@infinera.com
H. Bock
Infinera
Munich
Germany
Email: hbock@infinera.com
Doolan & Bock Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
