Internet DRAFT - draft-irtf-nfvrg-policy-based-resource-management
draft-irtf-nfvrg-policy-based-resource-management
nfvrg R. Szabo, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational S. Lee, Ed.
Expires: May 3, 2017 ETRI
N. Figueira
Brocade
October 30, 2016
Policy-Based Resource Management
draft-irtf-nfvrg-policy-based-resource-management-02
Abstract
abstract to be defined
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 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 May 3, 2017.
Copyright Notice
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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Architecture Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. MANO Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Policies in the MANO Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Global vs Local Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Hierarchical Policy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.1. Mapping to Hierarchical Resource Orchestration . . . 12
5.5. Policy Pub/Sub Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.5.1. Pub/sub bus in the hierarchical framework . . . . . . 15
5.6. Policy Intent Statement versus Subsystem Actions and
Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.7. Static vs Dynamic vs Autonomic Policies . . . . . . . . . 17
5.8. Policy Conflicts and Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.9. Soft vs Hard Policy Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.10. Operational Policies for Resource management . . . . . . 17
5.10.1. Operational Policies at NFVO . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.10.2. Operational Policies at VIM/WIM . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Policy-Based Resource Management Examples . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Policy-Based Multipoint Ethernet Service . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Policy-Based NFV Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Policy-Based VNF-FG Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4. Policy-Based Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Implementation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Gaps and Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.1. Relation to other IETF/IRTF activities . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction
NFV "Point of Presence" (PoP) will be likely constrained in compute
and storage capacity. Since practically all NFV PoPs are foreseen to
be distributed, inter-datacenter network capacity is also a
constraint. Additionally, energy is also a constraint, both as a
general concern for NFV operators, and in particular for specific-
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
purpose NFV PoPs such as those in mobile base stations. This draft
focuses on the optimized resource management and workload
distribution based on policy to address such contraints.
1.1. Scope
For the first version of the draft, only the research group currently
adopted drafts (i.e., [I-D.norival-nfvrg-nfv-policy-arch],
[I-D.irtf-nfvrg-resource-management-service-chain], and
[I-D.unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming]) are considered as inputs to
this document. The initial goal is to summarize these inputs and to
assess gaps and open questions.
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
3. Definitions
This document uses the terms of [ETSI-NFV-TERM]:
o MANO - Management and Orchestration: Describes the architecture
framework to manage NFVI and orchestrate the allocation of
resources needed by the NSs and VNFs.
o NF - Network Functions: A functional building block within a
network infrastructure, which has well-defined external interfaces
and a well-defined functional behavior.
o NFV Framework: The totality of all entities, reference points,
information models and other constructs defined by the
specifications published by the ETSI ISG NFV.
o NFVI - NFV Infrastructure: The NFV-Infrastructure is the totality
of all hardware and software components which build up the
environment in which VNFs are deployed.
o NFVI-PoP: A location or point of presence that hosts NFV
infrastructure
o NFVO - Network Function Virtualization Orchestrator: The NFV
Orchestrator is in charge of the network wide orchestration and
management of NFV (infrastructure and software) resources, and
realizing NFV service topology on the NFVI.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
o NS - Network service: A composition of network functions and
defined by its functional and behavioural specification.
o VNF - Virtualized Network Function: An implementation of an NF
that can be deployed on a Network Function Virtualization
Infrastructure (NFVI).
o VNF-FG - VNF Forwarding Graph: A NF forwarding graph where at
least one node is a VNF.
Additionally, we use the following terms:
o NFP - Network Forwarding Path: The sequence of hardware/software
switching ports and operations in the NFV network infrastructure
as configured by management and orchestration that implements a
logical VNF forwarding graph "link" connecting VNF "node" logical
interfaces.
o Virtual Link: A set of connection points along with the
connectivity relationship between them and any associated target
performance metrics (e.g. bandwidth, latency, QoS). The Virtual
Link can interconnect two or more entities (VNF components, VNFs,
or PNFs).
o Scaling: Ability to dynamically extend/reduce resources granted to
the Virtual Network function (VNF) as needed.
o NFVIaaS: NFV infrastructure as a service to other SP customers.
o SDN: Software Defined Networking.
o BSS: Business Support Systems
o OSS: Operation Support Systems
o DC: Data Center
o VM: Virtual machine
4. Requirements
tbd
5. Architecture Considerations
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
5.1. MANO Architecture
According to the ETSI MANO framework [ETSI-NFV-MANO], an NFVO is
split into two functions (see Figure 1):
o The orchestration of NFVI resources across multiple VIMs,
fulfilling the Resource Orchestration functions. The NFVO uses
the Resource Orchestration functionality to provide services that
support accessing NFVI resources in an abstracted manner
independently of any VIMs, as well as governance of VNF instances
sharing resources of the NFVI infrastructure
o The lifecycle management of Network Services, fulfilling the
network Service Orchestration functions.
Similarly, a VIM is split into two functions (see Figure 1):
o Orchestrating the allocation/upgrade/release/reclamation of NFVI
resources (including the optimization of such resources usage),
and
o managing the association of the virtualised resources to the
physical compute, storage, networking resources.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
+-------------------+
|NVFO |
| +--------------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
| |Service | |
| |Lifecycle | |
| |Management | |
| +------+-------+ |
| | |
| +------+-------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
| |Resource | |
| |Orchestration | |
| +--+---+----+--+ |
+-----|---|----|----+
/ | \
/---------/ | \------------\
/ | \
+-------------|-----+ +--------|----------+ +------|------------+
|VIM | | |VIM | | |VIM | |
| +----------+---+ | | +-----+--------+ | | +---+----------+ |
| |VIM: | | | |VIM: | | | |VIM: | |
| |Orchestration | | | |Orchestration | | | |Orchestration | |
| |& | | | |& | | | |& | |
| |Optimization | | | |Optimization | | | |Optimization | |
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| | | | | | | | |
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| |VIM: | | | |VIM: | | | |VIM: | |
| |Virtualized 2 | | | |Virtualized 2 | | | |Virtualized 2 | |
| |Pys mapping | | | |Pys mapping | | | |Pys mapping | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 1: Functional decomposition of the NFVO and the VIM according
to the ETSI MANO
In Figure 2 we show various policies mapped to the MANO architecture
(see Section 5.2 for more dicussions on policies in the MANO
architeture):
o Tenant Policies: Tenant policies exist whenever a domain offers a
virtualization service to more than one consumer. User tenants
may exists at the northbound of the NFVO. Additionally, if a VIM
exposes resource services to more than one NFVO, then each NFVO
may appear as a tenant (virtualization consumer) at the northbound
of the VIM.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
o Wherever virtualization services are produced or consumed
corresponding export and import policies may exist. Export
policies govern the details of resources, capabilities, costs,
etc. exposed to consumers. In turn, consumers (tenants) apply
import policies to filter, tweak, annotate resources and services
received from their southbound domains. An entity may at the same
time consume and produce virtualization services hence apply both
import and export policies.
o Operational policies support the business logic realized by the
domain's ownership. They are often associated with Operations or
Business Support Systems (OSS or BSS) and frequently determine
operational objectives like energy optimization, utilization
targets, offered services, charging models, etc. Operational
policies may be split according to different control plane layers,
for example, i) lifecycle and ii) resource management layers
within the NFVO.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
T1 T2...Tn
| | |
+-----|--|---|------+
|NVFO | | | | Tenant
| +--+--+---+----+ | <- Policies
| |NFVO: | |
Operational | |Service | |
Policies-> | |Lifecycle | |
| |Management | |
| +------+-------+ |
| | |
| +------+-------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
Operational | |Resource | |
Policies-> | |Orchestration | | ^
| +--+---+----+--+ | |Import
to +-----|---|---------+ |Policies
other NFVO / \
\ +-------+ \
\ / \ to NFVO ^
+------\------|-----+ \ / |Export
|VIM \ | | \ / |Policies
| +-----+----+---+ | +--------|----|-----+
| |VIM: | | |VIM | | | Tenant
| |Orchestration | | | +-----+----+---+ | <- Policies
| |& | | | |VIM: | |
| |Optimization | | . | |Orchestration | |
| +------+-------+ | . | |& | | <- Operational
| | | | |Optimization | | Policies
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| |VIM: | | | | |
| |Virtualized 2 | | | +------+-------+ |
| |Pys mapping | | | |VIM: | | <- Operational
| +--------------+ | | |Virtualized 2 | | Policies
+-------------------+ | |Pys mapping | |
| +--------------+ |
+-------------------+
Figure 2: Policies within the MANO framework
5.2. Policies in the MANO Architecture
The current industry work in the area of policy for NFV is mostly
considered in the framework of general cloud services, and typically
focused on individual subsystems and addressing very specific use
cases or environments. For example, [ETSI-NFV-WHITE-PAPER] addresses
network subsystem policy for network virtualization, [ODL-GB-POLICY]
and [ODL-NIC-PROJECT] are open source projects in the area of network
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
policy as part of the OpenDaylight [ODL-SDN-CONTROLLER] software
defined networking (SDN) controller framework, [RFC3060] specifies an
information model for network policy, [VM-HOSTING-NET-CLUSTER]
focuses on placement and migration policies for distributed virtual
computing, [OPENSTACK-CONGRESS] is an open source project proposal in
OpenStack [OPENSTACK] to address policy for general cloud
environments.
A policy framework applicable to the MANO architure must consider NFV
services from the perspective of overall orchestration requirements
for services involving multiple subsystems (e.g., Figure 1 and
Figure 2).
While this document discusses policy atributes as applicable to the
MANO architecture, the general topic of policy has already been
intensively studied and documented on numerous publications over the
past 10 to 15 years (see [RFC3060], [POLICY-FRAMEWORK-WG], [RFC3670],
[RFC3198], and [CERI-DATALOG] to name a few). This document's
purpose is to discuss and document a policy framework applicable to
the MANO architecture using known policy concepts and theories to
address the unique requirements of NFV services including multiple
PoPs and networks forming hierarchical domain architectures
[SDN-MULTI-DOMAIN].
With the above goals, this document analyses "global versus local
policies" (Section 5.3), a "hierarchical policy framework"
(Section 5.4) to address the demanding and growing requirements of
NFV environments, a "policy pub/sub bus in the hierarchical
framework" (Section 5.5), "policy intent versus subsystem actions"
(Section 5.6), "static versus dynamic versus autonomic policies"
(Section 5.7), "policy conflict detection and resolution"
(Section 5.8), and "soft versus hard policy constraints"
(Section 5.9), which can be relevant to resource management in
service chains [RESOURCE-MGMT-SERVICE-CHAIN].
5.3. Global vs Local Policies
Some policies may be subsystem specific in scope, while others may
have broader scope and interact with multiple subsystems. For
example, a policy constraining certain customer types (or specific
customers) to only use certain server types for VNF or Virtual
Machine (VM) deployment would be within the scope of the compute
subsystem. A policy dictating that a given customer type (or
specific customers) must be given "platinum treatment" could have
different implications on different subsystems. As shown in
Figure 8, that "platinum treatment" could be translated to servers of
a given performance specification in a compute subsystem and storage
of a given performance specification in a storage subsystem.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
Policies with broader scope, or global policies, would be defined
outside affected subsystems and enforced by a global policy engine
(Figure 3), while subsystem-specific policies or local policies,
would be defined and enforced at the local policy engines of the
respective subsystems.
Examples of sub-system policies can include thresholds for
utilization of sub-system resources, affinity/anti-affinity
constraints with regard to utilization or mapping of sub-system
resources for specific tasks, network services, or workloads, or
monitoring constraints regarding under-utilization or over-
utilization of sub-system resources.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
| | Global Policy Engine | |
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
| |
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
| | Global Policies | |
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
V V V V
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|Compute | |Network | |Storage | |Whatever |
|Subsystem | |Subsystem | |Subsystem | |Subsystem |
| | | | | | | |
|Local Policy | |Local Policy | |Local Policy | |Local Policy |
|Engine | |Engine | |Engine | |Engine |
| | | | | | | |
|Local | |Local | |Local | |Local |
|Policies: | |Policies | |Policies | |Policies |
| P0, P1, | | P0, P1, | | P0, P1, | | P0, P1, |
| | | | | | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 3: Global versus Local Policy Engines
5.4. Hierarchical Policy Framework
So far, we have referenced compute, network, and storage as
subsystems examples. However, the following subsystems may also
support policy engines and subsystem specific policies:
o SDN Controllers, e.g., OpenDaylight [ODL-SDN-CONTROLLER].
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
o OpenStack [OPENSTACK] components such as, Neutron, Cinder, Nova,
and etc.
o Directories, e.g., LDAP, ActiveDirectory, and etc.
o Applications in general, e.g., standalone or on top of
OpenDaylight or OpenStack.
o Physical and virtual network elements, e.g., routers, firewalls,
application delivery controllers (ADCs), and etc.
o Energy subsystems, e.g., OpenStack Neat [OPENSTACK-NEAT].
Therefore, a policy framework may involve a multitude of subsystems.
Subsystems may include other lower level subsystems, e.g., Neutron
[OPENSTACK-NEUTRON] would be a lower level subsystem in the OpenStack
subsystem. In other words, the policy framework is hierarchical in
nature, where the policy engine of a subsystem may be viewed as a
higher level policy engine by lower level subsystems. In fact, the
global policy engine in Figure 3 could be the policy engine of a Data
Center subsystem and multiple Data Center subsystems could be grouped
in a region containing a region global policy engine. In addition,
one could define regions inside regions, hierarchically, as shown in
Figure 4.
Metro and wide-area network (WAN) used to interconnect data centers
would also be independent subsystems with their own policy engines.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
To higher level domain
^
Region 1 |
Domain V
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ |
| |Region 1 Global| |<------>| |WAN 1 Global | |
| |Policy Engine | | | |Policy Engine | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ |
| | | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ |
| |Whatever | | | |Whatever | |
| |Subsystems | | | |Subsystems | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Local Policy | | | |Local Policy | |
| |Engines | | | |Engines | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
^ ^
| |
| +-------------------------+
| |
DC 1 Domain V DC N Domain V
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ |
| |DC 1 Global | | | |DC N Global | |
| |Policy Engine | | | |Policy Engine | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ |
| | | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ |
| |Whatever | | | |Whatever | |
| |Subsystems | | | |Subsystems | |
| | | | | | | |
| |Local Policy | | | |Local Policy | |
| |Engines | | | |Engines | |
| +---------------+ | | +---------------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 4: A Hierarchical Policy Framework
5.4.1. Mapping to Hierarchical Resource Orchestration
If the MANO framework is extended to multi layer hierarchies
[I-D.unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming], then a potential mapping of
the hierarchical policies to the MANO architecture is shown in
Figure 5
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
T1 T2...Tn
+--|--|----|---+
| |
|Service |
Domain 4 | Orchestrator|
************************************ +--+-----------+
T1 T2...Tn *******|******************
Tenant Policies -> +--|--|----|---+ |
| NFVO: | |
| Service | | <-Domain Policies
| Lifecycle | |
| Orchestrator | |
+-------+------+ /
Domain 3 | /
******************** +-+---------+--+ <-Tenant Policies
* |NFVO: |
****************** * |Rersource | <-Domain Policies
T1 T2...Tn * * |Orchestration |
+--|--|----|---+ * * +--+---+-------+
| NFVO: | * ********|***|************************
| Service | * / |
| Lifecycle | /---------/ | <-Domain Policies
| Orchestrator | / * |
+---------+----+ | * |
| | * |
+--+-------+---+* | <-Tenant Policies
| |* |
|NFVO: |* | <-Domain Policies
|Rersource |* |
|Orchestration |* |
+------+-------+* |
/|\ * *********|**********
+------+-------+* * +------+-------+ * <-Tenant Policies
+--|a/VIM: |* * |VIM: | *
+--|b |Resource |* * |Resource | * <-Domain Policies
|c | |Orchestrationn|* * |Orchestration | *
| | +--------------+* * +--------------+ *
Domain 1 * * Domain 2 *
************************ * *
Figure 5: Policies in a Hierarchical Orchestration View
5.5. Policy Pub/Sub Bus
In [I-D.irtf-nfvrg-nfv-policy-arch] the authors argued for the need
of policy subsystems to subscribe to policy updates at a higher
policy level. A policy publication/subscription (pub/sub) bus would
be required as shown in Figure 6.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
| | Global Policy Engine | |
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
| |
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
| | Global Policies | |
| +----------------------------------------------+ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
^
|
|
Policy Pub/Sub Bus V
--------------------------------------------------------------
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
| | | |
V V V V
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|Compute | |Network | |Storage | |Whatever |
|Subsystem | |Subsystem | |Subsystem | |Subsystem |
| | | | | | | |
|Local Policy | |Local Policy | |Local Policy | |Local Policy |
|Engine | |Engine | |Engine | |Engine |
| | | | | | | |
|Local | |Local | |Local | |Local |
|Policies: | |Policies | |Policies | |Policies |
| P0, P1, | | P0, P1, | | P0, P1, | | P0, P1, |
| | | | | | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 6: A Policy Pub/Sub Bus
A higher tier policy engine would communicate policies to lower tier
policy engines using a policy pub/sub bus. Conversely, lower tier
policy engines would communicate their configured policies and
services to the higher tier policy engine using the same policy pub/
sub bus. Such communications require each policy pub/sub bus to have
a pre-defined/pre-configured policy "name space". For example, a
pub/sub bus could define services using the name space "Platinum",
"Gold", and "Silver". A policy could then be communicated over that
pub/sub bus specifying a Silver service requirement.
In a hierarchical policy framework, a policy engine may use more than
one policy pub/sub bus, e.g., a policy pub/sub bus named "H" to
communicate with a higher tier policy engine and a policy pub/sub bus
named "L" to communicate with lower tier policy engines. As the name
spaces of policy pub/sub buses H and L may be different, the policy
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
engine would translate policies defined using the policy pub/sub bus
H name space to policies defined using the policy pub/sub bus L name
space, and vice-versa.
5.5.1. Pub/sub bus in the hierarchical framework
Figure 7 shows the Pub/sub bus in the hierarchical MANO framework.
Policy communications would employ a policy pub/sub bus between the
subsystems' policy engines in the policy hierarchy (see Section 5.4).
The global NFVO subsystem should have visibility into the policies
defined locally at each PoP to be able to detect any potential global
policy conflicts, e.g., a local PoP administrator could add a local
policy that violates or conflicts with a global policy. In addition,
the global NFVO subsystem would benefit from being able to import the
currently configured services at each PoP. The global NFVO would use
such information to monitor global policy conformance and also to
facilitate detection of policy violations when new global policies
are created, e.g., a global level administrator is about to add a new
global policy that, if committed, would make certain already
configured services a violation of the policy. The publication of
subsystem service tables for consumption by a global policy engine is
a concept used in the Congress [OPENSTACK-CONGRESS] OpenStack
[OPENSTACK] project.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
Customers
|
V
+--------------+
| Web Portal |
+--------------+
^
|
V
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| OSS/BSS | | Global NFVO |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| |OSS/BSS | | Policy | |NFVO | |
| |Policy Engine|<---------->|Policy Engine| |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| | | ^ |
| ... | | | ... |
+-----------------+ +--------|--------+
|
Policy (Pub/Sub Bus) V
-------------------------------------------
^ ^ ^
| | |
+-------|-------+ +-------|-------+ +-------|-------+
| PoP A | | | PoP B | | | PoP C | |
| V | | V | | V |
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
| |Local NFVO | | | |Local NFVO | | | |Local NFVO | |
| | +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | |
| | |Policy | | | | | |Policy | | | | | |Policy | | |
| | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | |
| | +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | |
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
| ^ | | ^ | | ^ |
| | | | | | | | |
| V | | V | | V |
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
| |VIM | | | |VIM | | | |VIM | |
| | +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | |
| | |Policy | | | | | |Policy | | | | | |Policy | | |
| | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | |
| | +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | |
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
| ... | | ... | | ... |
+---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
Figure 7: Pub/sub bus in the hierarchical MANO framework
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
5.6. Policy Intent Statement versus Subsystem Actions and
Configurations
Content to be merged
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Policy: "a given customer must be given Platinum treatment" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
V V V V
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|Compute | |Network | |Storage | |Whatever |
|Subsystem | |Subsystem | |Subsystem | |Subsystem |
| | | | | | | |
|Policy | |Policy | |Policy | |Policy |
|translation: | |translation: | |translation: | |translation: |
| | | | | | | |
|Install | |Give customer| |Give customer| | ... |
|customer VMs | |the best QoS,| |the fastest | | |
|on servers | |which | |SSD storage. | | |
|with 3GHz | |translates | | | | |
|16-core Xeon | |here to set | | | | |
|processors, | |DHCP to xx, | | | | |
|and etc. | |and etc. | | | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 8: Example of Subsystem Translations of Policy Actions
5.7. Static vs Dynamic vs Autonomic Policies
Content to be merged
5.8. Policy Conflicts and Resolution
Content to be merged
5.9. Soft vs Hard Policy Constraints
Content to be merged
5.10. Operational Policies for Resource management
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
+-------------------+
|NFVO | <- AAA Policy
| +--------------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
| |Service | | <- RD Policy
| |Lifecycle | |
| |Management | |
| +------+-------+ |
| | |
| +------+-------+ |
| |NFVO: | |
| |Resource | | <- RS Policy
| |Orchestration | |
| +---+--+----+--+ |
+------|--|----|----+
/ \ \
/ \ \ +-------+
/ \ ---+ VNFM |
/ \ +---+---+
/ \ |
/ \ |
/ \ |
+---------+---------+ +-----+------+------+
|WIM | |VIM |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| |WIM: | | | |VIM: | |
| |Orchestration | | | |Orchestration | | <- RA Policy
| |& | | | |& | |
| |Optimization | | | |Optimization | |
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| | | | | |
| +------+-------+ | | +------+-------+ |
| |WIM: | | | |VIM: | |
| |Virtualized 2 | | | |Virtualized 2 | | <- RE Policy
| |Pys mapping | | | |Pys mapping | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 9: Operational policies for resource management
The use of NFVI resources for multiple network services can be
optimized in various objectives as defined in the operational
policies (as described in Section 5.2).
The operational policies can be split to different layers of NFVO and
VIM/WIM and they include 1) resource scheduling (RS) policy, resource
adaptation (RD) policy and authentication, authorization, accounting
(AAA) policy at NFVO, and 2) resource allocation (RA) policy and
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
resource embedding (RE) policy at VIM/WIM. They can be mapped to the
MANO architecture as shown in Figure 9.
5.10.1. Operational Policies at NFVO
During NS/VNF lifecycles, states of NFVI/WAN resources or the
performance of VNF and VL instances may vary in time (e.g., the
performance degradation due to incorrect placement or incorrect
forwarding action). Another concern for such dynamic changes is
fail-over as a fundamental consideration, i.e., physical resources or
virtualized resources in NFVI may fail during network services.
These dynamic changes significantly could affect the overall
performance for NS. Therefore, such dynamic changes triggered during
NS/VNF lifecycles should be coped with for guaranteeing the NS
performance and the optimized resource usage. Figure 9 shows that
NFVO needs to enforce resource adaptation (RD) policy as an
operational policy at NFVO. RD policy supports how NFVO adapts the
allocated NFVI/WAN resources (e.g., VM migration, scaling) by dealing
with triggered variations. RD policy engine can detect the changes
from measurement and diagnosis from VNFM and/or VIM/WIM.
Figure 9 also shows that NFVO needs to enforce resource scheduling
(RS) policy. RS policy determines the locations of VNF and VL
instances that constitute NS across multiple PoPs and WANs while
optimally allocating NFVI and WAN resources to the instances.
In particular, RD and RA policies would consider a business model
from OSS/BSS which specifies operational (or business) objectives
(e.g., overall energy consumption and NFVI resource utilization)
within its domain and with taking account of (on-boarded) network
service descriptor (NSD) as an NS policy including the virtualization
aspects of application feature, QoS parameters, affinity, anti-
affinity rules, and so on.
On the one hand, for the user authorization, authentication,
authorization, accounting (AAA) policy may be needed. Authentication
policy provides a way of identifying a user while the authorization
policy determines whether the user has the authority for virtualized
resources (i.e., NFVI/WAN resources) to receive the network service
or not. Accounting policy measures the resources the user consumes
during the network service. This can include the amount of system
time/data, and so on.
5.10.2. Operational Policies at VIM/WIM
As shown in Figure 9, RA policy supports how each subsystem (e.g.,
compute, storage subsystem) in NFVI is allocated depending on the
placement information from NFVO to further optimize the resource
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
usage. Moreover, the assigned NFVI resources are embedded (or
allocated) to physical resources in VIM/WIM depending on states and
usage of resources by means of resource embedding (RE) policy as
shown in Figure 9. In other words, RE policy determines and
coordinates how the allocated virtual resources are mapped to
physical resources. For example, RE policy may be updated when some
physical resources are failed or a virtualization technique is
changed.
6. Policy-Based Resource Management Examples
6.1. Policy-Based Multipoint Ethernet Service
Content to be merged
6.2. Policy-Based NFV Placement
Content to be merged
6.3. Policy-Based VNF-FG Management
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
+-------------------+
| NFVO |
| +---------------+ |
| |NFVO | |
| |RS Policy | |
| |Engine | |
| +---------------+ |
| ^ |
| | ... |
+---------|---------+
|
V Allocation information
-----------------------------------------------
^ ^ ^
| | |
+-------|---------+ +-------|---------+ +-------|---------+
|vPoP A | | |WAN | | |vPoP B | |
| V | | V | | V |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| |VIM A | | | |WIM | | | |VIM B | |
| | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | |RA Policy| | | | | |RA Policy| | | | | |RA Policy| | |
| | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | |
| | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| ... | | ... | | ... |
| | | | | |
| +-----+ | | | | |
| |VNF-A| | | | | |
| +-----+ | | | | |
| # +-----+ | | | | +-----+ |
| #####|VNF-B|#############################|VNF-C| |
| VL1 +-----+ | | VL2 | | +-----+ |
| | | | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
### NFP
Figure 10: Policy-based VNF-FG Management
Another subsystem example for the policy framework is VNF-FG. When
VNF-FGs of end-to-end network services are realized, NFVI resources
across multiple NFVI-PoPs and WAN resources that connect among them
should be allocated to the VNF-FGs. It depends on the target KPIs of
individual VNF and VL instances that constitute VNF-FGs. In
particular, in case of VNF-FG, chained performances and capabilities
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
of VNF and VL instances need to be considered together with on VL
instances the inter-connectivity between different NFVI-PoPs. For
example, if one of the VNF instances or VL instances along the VNF-FG
gets overloaded, the end-to-end network service may also get
affected. Therefore, while features of such VNF-FG are carefully
considered, proper operational policies for resource management (see
Section 5.10) are required.
As shown in Figure 10, consider a scenario where a user requests a
VNF-FG composed of "VNF A-VL 1-VNF B-VL 2-VNF C". For the VNF-FG, an
RA policy is enforced in which it is designed to avoid over-
utilization of PoP A and to reduce latency on VL 1. Therefore, NFVO
places VNF A, VNF B, and VL 1 on PoP A by consuming its computing and
network resources to achieve low latency. On the other hand, VL 2
and VNF C is allocated to the resources of WAN and PoP B,
respectively to avoid over-utilization of PoP A.
On the one hand, dynamic changes such as a VNF failure significantly
affect on the overall performance of VNF-FG since VNF-FG is a chain
of VNF and VL instances. Thus, such dynamic changes should be coped
with by RD policy for guaranteeing the VNF-FG performance and the
optimized resource usage. A fault management for VNF-FG based on
policy example is shown in Section 6.4.
6.4. Policy-Based Fault Management
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
+-------------------+
| NFVO |
| +---------------+ |
| |NFVO | |
| |RS Policy | |
| |Engine | |
| +---------------+ |
| ^ |
| | ... |
+---------|---------+
V
----------------------------------------------
^ ^ ^
| | |
+-------|---------+ +-------|---------+ +-------|---------+
|vPoP A | | |vPoP B | | |vPoP C | |
| V | | V | | V |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| |VIM A | | | |VIM B | | | |VIM C | |
| | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | |RA Policy| | | | | |RA Policy| | | | | |RA Policy| | |
| | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | |
| | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| ... | | ... | | ... |
| | | | | |
| +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ |
| |VNF-A|##############|VNF-B|#############|VNF-C| |
| +-----+ VL-1 | | +-----+ VL-2| | +-----+ |
| | | ^ | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | (failure) | | |
| | | | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
### NFP
Figure 11: Failure Scenario for VNF-FG
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
+------------------------------------+
|NFVO |
| +--------------------------------+ |
| | RD policy engine | |
| |Adapts resources to the failed | |
| |elements while guaranteeing | |
| |performance | |
| +--------------------------------+ |
+------------------+-----------------+
|
|
+-------------------+---------------------+
|VNFM/VIM/WIM |
| +-------------------------------------+ |
| | Diagnosis / Measurement | |
| |A failure event | |
| |Throughputs of VNF and VL instances | |
| |Topological location... | |
| +-------------------------------------+ |
+-----------------------------------------+
Figure 12: Architecture for policy-based fault management
As shown in Figure 11, consider a scenario that a VM related to VNF-B
(i.e., a VNF-B instance) is failed in the given VNF-FG composed VNF-
A, VNF-B, VNF-C in order. Note that the NFVI and WAN resources are
already allocated to the instances by RS policy. For service
continuity, failure of the VNF-B instance needs to be detected based
on diagnosis function in VIM/VNFM and the failed one needs to be
replaced with a new instance or to be assigned to the existing
instance which is available. The diagnosis and measurement function
may collect current performance measures and location for instances
as well as such a failure event.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
+-------------------+
| NFVO |
| +---------------+ |
| |NFVO | |
| |RD Policy | |
| |Engine | |
| +---------------+ |
| ^ |
| | ... |
+---------|---------+
|
V
----------------------------------------------
^ ^ ^
| | |
+-------|---------+ +-------|---------+ +-------|---------+
|vPoP A | | |vPoP B | | |vPoP C | |
| V | | V | | V |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| |VIM A | | | |VIM B | | | |VIM C | |
| | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | |RA Policy| | | | | |RA Policy| | | | | |RA Policy| | |
| | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | |
| | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| ... | | ... | | ... |
| | | | | |
| +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ |
| |VNF-A| | | |VNF-B| | | |VNF-C| |
| +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ |
| # | | ^ | | # |
| # New | | | | | # |
| # VL-1 | | (failure) | # |
| +-------+ | | | | # |
| |New |#################################### |
| |VNF-B | | | | | New VL-2 |
| +-------+ | | | | |
| | | | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
### NFP
Figure 13: Re-instantiation for VNF-FG
In the first case where a VNF instantiation is needed, a new VNF
instantiation is determined by the RD policy engine in NFVO. For
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
example, NFVO may avoid replacement of VNF B on NFVI-PoP B owing to
high possibility of failure. Therefore, NFVO could instantiate VNF B
on NFVI-PoP A or NFVI-PoP C with the setup of new connection points
(CPs) while guaranteeing performance as shown in Figure 13.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
+-------------------+
| NFVO |
| +---------------+ |
| |NFVO | |
| |RD Policy | |
| |Engine | |
| +---------------+ |
| ^ |
| | ... |
+---------|---------+
|
V
----------------------------------------------
^ ^ ^
| | |
+-------|---------+ +-------|---------+ +-------|---------+
|vPoP A | | |vPoP B | | |vPoP C | |
| V | | V | | V |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| |VIM A | | | |VIM B | | | |VIM C | |
| | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| | |RA Policy| | | | | |RA Policy| | | | | |RA Policy| | |
| | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | | | | |Engine | | |
| | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | |
| +-------------+ | | +-------------+ | | +-------------+ |
| ... | | ... | | ... |
| | | | | |
| +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ |
| |VNF-A| | | |VNF-B| | | |VNF-C| |
| +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ |
| # | | ^ | | # |
| # | | | | | # |
| # New | | (failure) | | # |
| # VL-1 | | | | # New |
| # | | +-------+ | | # VL-2 |
| ##################| VNF-B1|############### |
| | | +-------+ | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
### NFP
Figure 14: No Re-instantiation for VNF-FG
In the second case where no VNF instantiation is needed since a
redundant VNF exists, the available VNF-B instance can used by the
VNF-FG. For example, a redundant VNF B instance exists in NFVI-PoP
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
B. Therefore, NFVO selects the instance and re-constructs two VLs as
shown in Figure 14, and the corresponding NS can be continued without
re-instantiation.
7. Implementation Examples
tbd
8. Gaps and Open Questions
tbd
9. Conclusions
tbd
9.1. Relation to other IETF/IRTF activities
tbd
10. Acknowledgements
The research leading to some of the results described in this
document has received funding from the European Union Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 619609
- the UNIFY project. The views expressed here are those of the
authors only. The European Commission is not liable for any use that
may be made of the information in this document.
11. Contributors
This document is the result of merging multiple drafts. This section
acknowledges those who provided important ideas and text into this
document.
o Z. Qiang (Ericsson), M. Kind (DT-AG) from
[I-D.unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming]
o R. Krishnan (Dell), D. Lopez (Telefonica) and S. Wright (AT&T)
from [I-D.irtf-nfvrg-nfv-policy-arch]
o S. Lee (ETRI), S. Pack (KU), M-K. Shin (ETRI) and E. Paik (KT)
from [I-D.irtf-nfvrg-resource-management-service-chain]
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
12. IANA Considerations
tbd
13. Security Considerations
tbd
14. References
14.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3060] Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J., and A. Westerinen,
"Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1
Specification", RFC 3060, DOI 10.17487/RFC3060, February
2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3060>.
[RFC3198] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling,
M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry,
J., and S. Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-Based
Management", RFC 3198, DOI 10.17487/RFC3198, November
2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3198>.
[RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and
W. Weiss, "Information Model for Describing Network Device
QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, DOI 10.17487/RFC3670,
January 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3670>.
14.2. Informative References
[CERI-DATALOG]
Ceri, S. and others, "What you always wanted to know about
Datalog (and never dared to ask", IEEE Transactions on
Knowledge and Data Engineering, (Volume: 1, Issue: 1),
August 2002.
[ETSI-NFV-MANO]
ETSI, "Network Function Virtualization (NFV) Management
and Orchestration V0.6.3", October 2014.
[ETSI-NFV-PER001]
ETSI, "Network Function Virtualization: Performance and
Portability Best Practices v1.1.1", June 2014.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
[ETSI-NFV-TERM]
ETSI, "NFV Terminology for Main Concepts in NFV", October
2013.
[ETSI-NFV-WHITE-PAPER]
ETSI NFV White Paper, "Network Functions Virtualisation,
An Introduction, Benefits, Enablers, Challenges, & Call
for Action",
<http://portal.etsi.org/NFV/NFV_White_Paper.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-virtual-net]
Morton, A., "Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual
Network Functions and Their Infrastructure", draft-ietf-
bmwg-virtual-net-04 (work in progress), August 2016.
[I-D.irtf-nfvrg-nfv-policy-arch]
Figueira, N., Krishnan, R., Lopez, D., Wright, S., and D.
Krishnaswamy, "Policy Architecture and Framework for NFV
Infrastructures", draft-irtf-nfvrg-nfv-policy-arch-04
(work in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.irtf-nfvrg-resource-management-service-chain]
Lee, S., Pack, S., Shin, M., Paik, E., and R. Browne,
"Resource Management in Service Chaining", draft-irtf-
nfvrg-resource-management-service-chain-03 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[I-D.liu-bmwg-virtual-network-benchmark]
Liu, V., Liu, D., Mandeville, B., Hickman, B., and G.
Zhang, "Benchmarking Methodology for Virtualization
Network Performance", draft-liu-bmwg-virtual-network-
benchmark-00 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.norival-nfvrg-nfv-policy-arch]
Figueira, N., Krishnan, R., Lopez, D., and S. Wright,
"Policy Architecture and Framework for NFV
Infrastructures", draft-norival-nfvrg-nfv-policy-arch-04
(work in progress), June 2015.
[I-D.unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming]
Szabo, R., Qiang, Z., and M. Kind, "Towards recursive
virtualization and programming for network and cloud
resources", draft-unify-nfvrg-recursive-programming-02
(work in progress), October 2015.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
[ODL-GB-POLICY]
"OpenDaylight Group Based Policy",
<https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/
Project_Proposals:Group_Based_Policy_Plugin>.
[ODL-NIC-PROJECT]
"OpenDaylight Network Intent Composition Project",
<https://wiki.opendaylight.org/index.php?title=Network_Int
ent_Composition:Main#Friday_8AM_Pacific_Time>.
[ODL-SDN-CONTROLLER]
"OpenDaylight SDN Controller",
<http://www.opendaylight.org/>.
[OPENSTACK]
"OpenStack", <http://www.openstack.org/>.
[OPENSTACK-CONGRESS]
"OpenStack Congress", <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/
Congress>.
[OPENSTACK-NEAT]
"OpenStack Neat", <http://openstack-neat.org/>.
[OPENSTACK-NEUTRON]
"OpenStack Neutron", <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/
Neutron>.
[POLICY-FRAMEWORK-WG]
"Policy Framework Working Group (IETF)",
<http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/policy.html>.
[RESOURCE-MGMT-SERVICE-CHAIN]
Lee, S. and others, "Resource Management in Service
Chaining", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-
nfvrg-resource-management-service-chain/>.
[SDN-MULTI-DOMAIN]
Figueira, N. and R. Krishnan, "SDN Multi-Domain
Orchestration and Control: Challenges and Innovative
Future Directions", IEEE International Conference on
Computing (ICNC), February 2015.
[VM-HOSTING-NET-CLUSTER]
Grit, L. and others, "Virtual Machine Hosting for
Networked Clusters: Building the Foundations for
"Autonomic" Orchestration", Virtualization Technology in
Distributed Computing (VTDC), 2006.
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Policy-based RM October 2016
Authors' Addresses
Robert Szabo (editor)
Ericsson
Konyves Kaman krt. 11
Budapest, EMEA 1097
Hungary
Phone: +36703135738
Email: robert.szabo@ericsson.com
Seungik Lee (editor)
ETRI
218 Gajeong-ro Yuseung-Gu
Daejeon 305-700
Korea
Phone: +82 42 860 1483
Email: seungiklee@etri.re.kr
Norival Figueira
Brocade
Email: nfigueir@Brocade.com
Szabo, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 32]
