Internet DRAFT - draft-stiliadis-sdnp-framework-use-cases
draft-stiliadis-sdnp-framework-use-cases
Network Working Group D.Stiliadis
Internet Draft F.Balus
Intended status: Information W. Henderickx
Expires: April 2012 Alcatel-Lucent
N. Bitar
Verizon
Mircea Pisica
BT
October 31, 2011
Software Driven Networks: Use Cases and Framework
draft-stiliadis-sdnp-framework-use-cases-01.txt
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 31, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
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.
Abstract
This document presents an application framework and associated use
cases to help define the scope of the SDNP working group. The use cases
start with an abstract representation of a multi-tier application and
illustrate the composition of a network service that can meet the
requirements of the particular application. The service composition
process is split into several steps, including application requirement
specification, network mapping, service binding, and policy control. We
also provide examples of interactions between an SDNP controller and L2
and L3 control layer protocols in order to deliver the end-to-end
service. Finally, as a derivate of that, an architecture framework for
SDNP that meets these requirements is proposed.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. General Terminology............................................4
3. Framework......................................................4
3.1. Application Definition....................................5
3.2. Network Mapping...........................................7
3.3. Network Service Binding...................................8
3.4. Policy Definition.........................................9
4. Examples of Service Binding...................................10
4.1. Example: An end-to-end data center service...............10
4.1.1. LAN Configuration...................................11
4.1.2. IPVPN Configuration.................................12
4.2. Configuration Alternatives...............................12
4.2.1. Network Element based Configuration.................12
4.2.2. Network Management based Configuration..............13
5. SDN Model and Reference Architecture..........................13
5.1. Scope and Approach.......................................15
6. Security Considerations.......................................15
7. IANA Considerations...........................................15
8. Conclusions...................................................16
9. References....................................................16
9.1. Normative References.....................................16
9.2. Informative References...................................16
10. Acknowledgments..............................................16
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
1. Introduction
In order to define the scope of the proposed SDNP working group, we
present a generic application use case and a sequence of steps
needed for mapping the application requirements to a deployable
network service. We also present a generic architecture framework
that can meet such requirements.
The goal of SDNP is to define a method where applications can
request services from the network and these services can be
automatically deployed. We view technologies such as FoRCES and
OpenFlow as complementary and orthogonal to SDNP. Unlike Openflow,
where the goal is to introduce a disaggregated control layer, the
goal of SDNP is to enable existing control planes to become more
adaptable to application requirements and to allow rapid and
reliable configuration changes by introducing a framework for
communication between applications and network control planes. More
importantly, the framework should be applicable to communicating
application requirements even when a variety of network technologies
is used to provide the required services. In this context, SDNP is
also useful to OpenFlow type networks, since it provides the
interface between applications and control planes implemented in an
Openflow controller.
In order to achieve these goals, applications should be able to
specify their requirements in a generic way and these requirements
must be translated in an actual network service. In general,
application developers do not know in advance the type of networks
that will be used and they would require an abstract and flexible
framework for defining their requirements.
Often times a service spans multiple administrative domains where
given application requirements are met by different networking
technologies. For example, providing network isolation for the
application servers can be achieved by VLANs, MPLS or other
underlying L2 or L3 technologies. It is possible that an application
that is distributed between multiple data centers and networks be
deployed through VLAN isolation in one domain and MPLS isolation in
another domain, and an IP VPN in between. The application does not
care as to which underlying technology is used to implement the
isolation, as long as the properties of the isolation are
guaranteed.
In most instances the types of network technologies that should be
used to deliver a given application will depend on policies either
set by the network service provider, cloud service provider, another
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
administrative authority, and/or the application itself. In multi-
tenant environments there can be a hierarchy of policy objectives
set by different organizations and the implementation of the network
service must take into account all policy restrictions. For example,
an enterprise IT organization can define that any application
deployed by their employees must adhere to specific security
requirements, such as encrypted tunnels between application servers.
At the same time, because of an SLA contract, the service provider
requires that the service is always deployed over redundant paths.
In these cases, the requirements imposed by the application will be
mapped in such a way that they comply with both policies. If for
example a user within that organization tries to deploy an
application with guaranteed bandwidth between servers, because of
the policies defined above, the service instantiation will be over
an encrypted and redundant path that satisfies the bandwidth
constraint. In the next sections we provide an overview of this
application driven framework and illustrate with specific examples
how an SDNP controller can interact with control layer protocols.
2. General Terminology
Network Spec: The definition of the network service requirements by
an application.
Network Mapping: The transformation of application requirements to a
network service on specific network technologies.
Binding: The binding of a network service to specific network
elements.
SDNP Controller: The software controller that allows the
specification of an application Network Spec, and implements the
network mapping and binding functions. In binding the network
mapping to a network element, the SDN control may talk to the
network element directly or via another controller such as an
Element Management System (EMS) or an open flow controller.
3. Framework
First we illustrate a generic framework for mapping application
requirements to network services and then we illustrate in more
detail the functionality of each component. Note that this framework
is just for illustration purposes and specific implementations can
combine multiple functional blocks in a variety of ways.
The basic blocks are illustrated in the next Figure:
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
+------+ +--------------+
| | |Application |
| P | |Definition |
| O | +------|-------+
| L | |
| I | +------|-------+
| C | |Network |
| I | |Mapping |
| E | +------|-------+
| S | |
| | +------|-------+
| | |Network |
| | |Binding |
+------+ +--------------+
Figure 1 Generic Framework
o Application Definition: This is a generic representation of the
requirements of an application without specifying the
underlying technology.
o Network Mapping: This function translates the requirements of
the application to an actual network service that can be
implemented by a specific network technology.
o Binding: This function maps the abstract network service on
control planes and specific network elements.
o Policies: Provides the repository of policies that will drive
the translation between generic requirements and network
technologies as well as the binding to specific elements.
3.1. Application Definition
An example of multi-tier application definition is shown in the next
Figure:
+------+ +------+
---|Server|--| ---|Server|--|
| +------+ | | +------+ |
+--------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+
|Network | | | |Network| | | |Network|
|Spec |--| |--|Spec |--| |--|Spec |
|Load | | | |(LAN) | | | |(WAN) |
|Balancer| | | | | | | | |
+-------+ | +------+ | +-------+ | +------+ | +-------+_
|--|Server|--| ---|Server|--|
+------+ +------+
Tier 1 Tier 2
Figure 2 Multi-tier application description
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
From the application perspective, the definition consists of a set
of compute and storage tiers interconnected by a network segment
that meets specific requirements. The application does not care
about the type of underlying technology, but rather about the
properties of the network segment. Generic application requirements
can include isolation, bandwidth, communication based on criteria
other than shortest path, network redundancy, access control, etc.
In the Example of Figure 2, the application might require that a
load balancer distribute load among all the Tier 1 servers. The
application does not care about how the load balancer is
instantiated or how it is configured, or whether it is a physical or
virtual machine. If the first Tier represents a set of Web servers
and the second Tier a set of Business Logic servers, the network
spec between the Tiers only defines that web-servers communicate
with business logic servers over a specific protocol and port and
require isolation. It does not define how this isolation is
achieved. The network mapping function, depending on the technology
chosen will implicitly identify the need for access lists or
firewall rules between the Tiers that will prevent any unauthorized
access.
A different network spec will define the back-end connectivity
requirements between the business logic tier and other enterprise
services. For example, it might require that the Business Logic Tier
must communicate with the enterprise Data Center over a secure
connection, since critical data must be physically protected and
stored within the enterprise premises. The application developer
does not necessarily need to know whether the application is
deployed across one or multiple DCs or what is the level of security
required. However, the IT policies that have been supplied to the
cloud provider should describe the necessary security mechanisms
that must be deployed in order to comply with legal compliance rules
or other policies. The policy will define for example that all
access to data base Tiers must be encrypted, and the encryption
strength that must be used.
Another type of network spec might define that all servers in a
given Tier belong to the same LAN, since the service will rely on
virtual machine motion for balancing the load or achieving
reliability. In another example, machines within a Tier need to form
a cluster that must support fencing that is achieved by a majority
protocol between the servers. In this case, healthy servers can
shutdown network connectivity to failing servers and the network
must provide the necessary APIs to achieve that. At the same time,
the network APIs must prevent an application belonging to one
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
customer to affect network connectivity of another customer or
another application.
In all the above examples, the application spec defines the
properties and attributes of communication between components
without necessarily defining the mechanism for achieving this
communication.
3.2. Network Mapping
The first transformation needed is to map the application
requirements to a set of network technologies that are supported by
the underlying physical network. Different service providers and
networks can choose different technologies for this implementation.
For example, if the underlying network utilizes VLANs and VPLS, then
it could map each of the individual networks in a different VLAN,
and it could utilize VPLS for interconnecting data center VLANs with
enterprise VLANs. Alternatively, if the service provider utilizes
some L2 over L3 technology such as proposed in VXLAN [DRAFT-VXLAN]
or PBB tunneling over IP, and IPVPN, it could use a combination of
these technologies to map the application requirements to a set of
network primitives.
This transformation function takes as input the application
requirements, the available network services, and the policy
definitions, and creates a design of a composite network service
that meets the application requirements. For the example
instantiation of the 2-tier application using VLANs, the resulting
network service is shown in Figure 3.
VLAN B
-------------------------------------------
| | | | |
| | Web Servers | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| | | | | | | | | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| | | | | Business
Logic Servers
+-------+ | | | | | +-----+
WAN--|Load |------------------------ -----------------| PE |
|Balance| VLAN A VLAN C +-----+
+-------+
Figure 3 Implementation of 2-tier service with VLANs
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
In this network mapping, the DC/cloud service provider has chosen to
implement the load balancer as a virtual machine, and has chosen to
interconnect application Tiers through VLANs. It has chosen an IPVPN
connectivity to the enterprise back-end. At this stage, although the
network service has been defined, the exact VLAN numbers or nodes
implementing the services have not been identified yet.
Note, that when a service spans multiple administrative domains, it
is possible that different technologies are used in each domain to
meet the same application requirements. For example, an application
that is split between a service provider data center and an
enterprise data center might rely on IEEE SPB for layer-2 isolation
within the service provider DC and VLAN based isolation within the
enterprise data center. In another example, a WAN request for a
guaranteed bandwidth path between data centers in different domains
can be implemented as a wavelength service in one domain and as an
MPLS service in another domain. Therefore, the service mapping must
not only define how the network service is provided in each of the
domains, but it must also identify the necessary mechanisms needed
for stitching services between domains. Obviously, this might
introduce a very large number of permutations, and therefore the
SDNP work must concentrate on frameworks and specific use cases to
limit the scope.
Note also that in multi-domain implementations, there is no single
master SDN controller. Each administrative domain will have its own
SDN controller. In these cases, communication between SDN
controllers must be done at the abstract level of service
requirements rather than by defining explicit network technologies.
In this way, different administrative domains can seamlessly
interface to serve such applications, even when they rely on
different network technologies.
The next step in the process is the binding of the network service
to specific network elements.
3.3. Network Service Binding
During this step of the operation, the composite network service
must be mapped to particular network elements and topologies. At
this level, the necessary resources (servers, virtual load
balancers, virtual firewalls, etc.) are mapped to specific physical
resources. The network service interconnecting these resources must
be instantiated through a sequence of programming steps between the
SDN controller and the individual physical or virtual network
elements or network management systems.
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
There are several different methods that can be used to implement
the binding process and a set of different protocols that can be
used for communicating with the individual network elements or
network management systems. Existing protocols include SNMP,
Netconf, and even Command Line Interface (CLI). Alternative
solutions might rely on network management tools and specific APIs
that they expose. As Openflow matures, an SDNP controller could also
program services in networks that utilize Openflow by communicating
with the Openflow controller.
The binding process will usually require a series of steps that can
include:
o L2 and L3 topology discovery,
o Path selection for each service
o Traffic engineering for providing some form of SLAs.
o Configuration of network elements for L2 and L3 services
Depending on the underlying technologies, some of the above steps
can be omitted and can be performed with distributed control planes.
For example establishing an MPLS path for communicating between data
centers can utilize LDP or RSVP-TE and does not need explicit
knowledge of the network topology or configuring every element in
the path. On the other configuring VLANs on an Ethernet network
might require explicit configuration of network elements.
Nevertheless, the important characteristic of the binding process is
that it requires a method for interacting with control layer
protocols or network and element management systems. Even though a
set of such mechanisms could be available in networks today, it is
unclear that the interfaces are powerful or generic enough to allow
such dynamic programming and this is the main focus of the SDNP
work. Bridging the gap between the controlled environment of today's
networks and an application driven network configuration will
require a set of access control mechanisms that will protect the
underlying infrastructure.
3.4. Policy Definition
Every transformation step in the above description must be driven by
policies that are administered either by the service provider, the
IT organization requesting the service or the applications
themselves.
It is such policies that will determine how network requirements are
mapped to network design and how services are bound to specific
network elements. The policy complexity will depend on the service
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
offered by a provider and can include security, billing, compliance,
performance related policies, etc.
4. Examples of Service Binding
As it is evident by the above description a complete framework for
application-driven network programming offers several layers of
abstraction and the work around SDNP must carefully choose the layer
of scope in order to solve specific problems. Addressing the whole
architecture might prove a huge and challenging task that will limit
the usefulness or impact timely completion of the work.
Clearly SDNP work must address the binding step that will enable
configuration of network elements and control layer protocols in
order to deliver the service. SDNP will also need to develop the
interfaces between different administrative domains for services
that span multiple domains. In the next Section we present such a
control protocol configuration that will illustrate the scope of
control plane programmability of SDNP.
4.1. Example: An end-to-end data center service
We consider the example presented in the previous Sections. We
assume that the implementation is done over an IEEE 802.1aq SPBM
network within the data center and an IPVPN service will connect the
DC servers with other enterprise resources. The SDNP controller will
utilize two different mechanisms to program the DC LAN and IPVPN
services. The logical service mapping is illustrated in the
following Figure 4, and it is similar to that of Figure 3, where
each VLAN is now replaced by a different service ID (ISID):
ISID A
-------------------------------------------
| | | | | Business Logic
| | Web Servers | | Servers
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| | | | | | | | | |
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| | | | |
+--------+ | | | | | +---------+
|Load |----------------------- -----------------| PE |
|Balancer| ISID B ISID C | +---+ |
+--------+ | |VRF| |
| +---+ |
+---------+
Figure 4 Service instantiation based on SPBM
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
4.1.1. LAN Configuration
+-------+ +-------+
| | | |
|B-BEB `------B-BEB |
| | | |
.-'--|--+ +--|--`-.
.-' | \ `.
.' / \ `-.
.-' | | `.
+--.-'--+ +---/---+ +----\--+ +--`-.--+
| | | | | | | |
|I-BEB 1| |I-BEB 2| |I-BEB 3| |I-BEB 4|
| | | | | | | |
+---|---+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | |
+---|---+ +---|---+ +---|---+ +---|---+
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Servers| |Servers| |Servers| |Servers|
| | | | | | | |
| T1 | | T1 | | T2 | | T2 |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 5 SPBM based DC networks
We consider a DC network based on SPBM [IEEE802.1aq] (see Figure 5).
Within the DC LAN, network isolation is provided by assigning
virtual machines or servers of a given data center tenant to
different Service IDs (ISIDs). A set of edge bridges (I-BEBs)
encapsulate Ethernet frames using PBB encapsulation. The I-BEB
function can be implemented either at the Top-of-Rack switch or at
the hypervisor virtual switch. A set of B-Component bridges (B-BEB)
interconnect the edge bridges. The I-BEBs will map traffic from each
tenant to a particular service instance (I-SID/B-VID) depending on
the service requirements. In the example of Figure 5, application
tier T1 is associated with I-BEBs 1 and 2 and application tier T2 is
associated with I-BEBs 3 and 4. The SPBM protocol provides the
mechanisms for shortest path forwarding and learning in the backbone
space without the need of deploying spanning trees or MAC learning.
SPBM also provides the mechanisms for service auto-discovery and
flood containment when a service covers a subset of service nodes.
For example, if servers of a given Tier are associated with a subset
of the I-BEBs, SPBM will create the multicast tree for flooding that
will be associated with only this subset of I-BEBs. In order to
instantiate a VM in a new node, the corresponding I-BEB needs to be
provisioned, and once this provisioning is complete SPBM will expand
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
the multicast tree and include this I-BEB in the multicast
distribution automatically. In the example of Figure 5, if a new VM
from tier T1 is associated with I-BEB 4, the multicast tree
associated with this I-SID/B-VID will be expanded to cover I-BEB4.
4.1.2. IPVPN Configuration
As shown in Figure 4, the enterprise service in the DC is connected
to other enterprise data centers and services through an IPVPN [RFC
4364]. The first time that a business logic tier server is
instantiated and ISID C is created, the SDNP controller must also
provision the PE with the corresponding VRF. The SDNP controller
provides the necessary information to the PE (incoming interface,
ISID/B-VID pair, route targets and route distinguishers), and
instructs the PE to instantiate the VRF. Once the VRF is
instantiated, the existing routing protocol mechanisms (MP-BGP) will
be used to propagate the routes to the other VRFs of the same IPVPN.
Note, that in this case the SDNP controller does not define
forwarding behavior, but it rather instantiates part of the control
plane.
The scope of the SDNP configuration is limited to the edge PE and
does not include any other provisioning or configuration in other
routers in the network. This provides a simple interaction between
the DC management system and network protocols, since it does not
impose the requirement for the DC management system to understand
the full network topology.
In more complex environments with separate DC and WAN PEs, this
configuration might apply only to the DC PE, and the inter-
connection between DC and WAN PEs can be done using any of the
options of [RFC 4364].
4.2. Configuration Alternatives
The SDNP Controller can choose one of two methods for provisioning
the necessary network functions.
4.2.1. Network Element based Configuration
In the above examples, the function of the SDNP controller is
limited to provisioning the "edge" elements (I-BEB, PE) and a layer-
2 or layer-3 protocol propagates the necessary information through
the network (SPBM or MP-B respectively). In both cases, the SDNP
controller has the ability to directly program functions in the
corresponding network elements and does not need access to all
network elements.
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
In addition to the programming interface, the SDNP controller must
have an exact representation of the physical topology so that it can
identify which I-BEB and PE must be provisioned (i.e. it is aware
of the physical connectivity between I-BEBs and servers, L2 topology
and PEs). The controller can discover this information by polling
the I-BEBs and/or using LLDP between I-BEBs and servers. The
controller can also listen to the SPBM protocol to capture topology
information. Alternatively I-BEBs can proactively notify the SDNP
controller about topology changes and the activation of new physical
or virtual servers.
4.2.2. Network Management based Configuration
In an alternative implementation, the SDNP controller does not
directly provision network elements, but it utilizes a network
management tool that is already deployed in the network. Note, that
in several cases, cloud and network operators have deployed network
management and OSS systems and would want all operations to be
driven by the these systems.
In this instance, the SDNP controller does not need to maintain
detailed topology information, and it just talks to the
corresponding network management system to issue the requests for I-
BEB and PE provisioning.
5. SDN Model and Reference Architecture
Based on the discussion above, and using the simple example of
Section 4 as guidance, we can develop the SDN reference architecture
that can capture these requirements. Figure 6 outlines this
architecture.
In this model, SDN Controllers expose an abstract API to
applications, where they can request specific network properties
such as bandwidth assignments, network isolation, routing
properties, redundancy properties, security requirements, etc.
Communication between different SDN Controllers enables these
entities to provide services across network administrative domains
without being constrained by underlying technologies. The interface
is limited to communicating the requirements of the application.
Each SDN Controller can translate application requirements to
different technologies based on the underlying network
implementations. This approach provides the maximum portability for
applications and does not burden application developers with network
technology specifics.
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
| Application API |
| Spec |
+------------------+ API ------------------+ +------+
|SDN Controller 1 |--------|SDN Controller N | | P |
| | | | | O |
+------------------+ +------------------+ | L |
| Service API | | I |
| | | C |
+------------------+ Intf +------------------+ | Y |
|Network Specific | API |Network Specific | | |
|Module |--------|Module | | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ +------+
| Network API |
| |
+----------+ +---------+
|Plug-in | |Plug-in |
|Rest API | |Rest API |
+----------+ +---------+
| |
| |
+-------+----------+ |
|Network Management| |
| | |
+-------+----------+ |
| |
| |
+-------+----------+ +--------+---------+
|Network | |Network |
|Control Plane | |Control Plane |
+------------------+ +------------------+
Figure 6 SNDP reference architecture
As it relates to the framework of Figure 1, the SDN controller
implements the Network Mapping function and it includes the policy
specification functions. The SDN controllers utilize a service API
to communicate these requests with a network technology specific
module that will be responsible for the translation of the
requirements to specific technology primitives. An Interface API
will enable network specific modules to stitch services together.
This is a technology dependent API and it will enable functions such
as mapping a VLAN to VPLS domain, or mapping an LSP to a wavelength
and so on.
The network specific module is essentially implementing the network
binding function of Figure 1. For every network technology, there is
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
a specific API to the control plane of network elements that will
allow the binding and instantiation of the network service. Note,
that in several environments it is possible that the network mapping
is communicated with a pre-existing network management system and
not directly with the control plane of network elements. This not
only allows the evolution from current operational models, but it
also enables the concurrent support of existing and future
operational models. If for example an OSS is currently driving the
deployment of network services through a network management system,
such an approach would allow new applications to utilize the same
infrastructure and provide an evolutionary path to a software
defined network.
Note, that the network specific module might also include
functionality related to topology discovery. The type of topology
information required will depend on the underlying technology and it
can range from a full network map in an Openflow environment to a
limited resource view when the final binding operation is performed
by a network management system.
5.1. Scope and Approach
Given the number of different networking technologies and
implementations, defining all possible APIs within the scope of a
single working group will be hard to tackle. The SDNP work should
therefore concentrate on designing the framework, application
network requirements schema, and API control and communication
architecture, as well as defining the reference schema and API
around a single networking technology as an example use case. Once
the framework is in place, the technology dependent functions can
utilize it to develop their own specific APIs and this can be done
across multiple working groups.
6. Security Considerations
The SDNP controller security aspects must be addressed, including
functions such as role based authentication and security of intra-
SDNP controller communications.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA does not need to take any action for this draft.
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
8. Conclusions
This document has introduced a generic framework for mapping
application requirements to specific network services within the
context of Software Driven Networks. The document also outlined a
reference framework as input to the definition of the scope of the
SDNP work.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[IEEE802.1aq] IEEE 802.1aq Shortest Path Bridging
[RFC 4364] E. Rosen et.al, BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks, RFC
4364, February 2006.
[DRAFT-VXLAN] Mhalingham et.al., "VXLAN: A framework for Overlaying
Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks,", draft-
mahalingham-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00.txt, September 2011.
10. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. We also
want to thank T. Sridhar for early comments on the draft.
Authors' Addresses
Dimitri Stiliadis
Alcatel-Lucent
777 E. Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
Email: dimitri.stiliadis@alcatel-lucent.com
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Software Defined Networks Use Cases October 2011
Florin Balus
Alcatel-Lucent
777 E. Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
Email: florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com
Wim Henderickx
Copernicuslaan 50
2018 Antwerp, Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.be
Nabil Bitar
Verizon
40 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02145
E-mail: nabil.bitar@verizon.com
Mircea Pisica
BT
Telecomlaan 9
Brussels 1831, Belgium
Email: mircea.pisica@bt.com
Stiliadis et.al. Expires April 31, 2012 [Page 17]
