On 13/11/2016 20:02, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>     >> Devices that have been brought up and are in the network post
>     >> bootstrap are not relevant to the BRSKI document.
> 
>     > To me the most important goal should be to provide candidate users with
>     > deployment guidance. This should fit ANIMA goals given how its an OPS
>     > group.
> 
> Chairs, 
>   I think we should add a new document to our set.  The title might be:
>      Autonomic Networking in Disaster Recovery: preperation and operation

Yes. I don't know if rechartering is already on the agenda, because we still
have several base documents that are overdue, but this makes a lot of sense
for Anima Phase 2.

    Brian

> 
> This would be a very very very operational BCP.
> We won't finish this until after everything has been put to bed, but I think
> we should start it soonest, so that we can capture much of this
> discussion/concern.
> 
>     >   a) keep spares unenrolled, enrol during desaster recovery with
>     > satellite link b) enrol spare devices when they are stocked, deploy
>     > during desaster.
> 
>     > lets assume we agree both are relevant deployment options that users
>     > should understand, compare pro/cons for their case and choose. If you
>     > think we can not mention both in the BRSKY spec, then i think it would
>     > be better to have a separate document where both could be discussed.
> 
> A reason why one would have unenrolled spares is because the spares are kept
> by the manufacturer in distributed warehouses, close to where they might be
> needed, or perhaps even, would be in a FEMA-like entities' warehouse, to be
> deployed to whichever operator needed them.
> 
> The use of Autonomic mechanisms might result in normalization much of the
> configuration of some devices, so it wouldn't matter as much which vendor's
> device was deployed.  Maybe this won't be for core BGP-happy BFRs, but it
> could be the case that less complicated things like 24 10/100/1000s switches
> would be in that category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 

_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Reply via email to