Dear Authors
Thank you for this work. The document sounds and currently intends to target
a full standard specification for arbitrary services management via GRASP. I
think this is an unattainable goal. What i think is attainable is to outline
how to build such GRASP based signaling specifications, and for that the
document
has good starting text, but it does not really well focus on that in comparison
to e.g.: pre-existing methods.
If the resource is located on a single GRASP speaking node, such as maybe
storage, compute or memory, this is easy to imagine:
- One needs to figure out what the type of resource and the specific
resource attributes are.
- One needs to figure out how to define objectives to find server nodes
that meet those resource attirbute needs - aka: memory of a certain minimum
size, and for example minimum speed, with or without persistance, etc. pp
- One then needs to define the GRASP objectives to request/negotiate and
re-negotiate such a service consumption request.
- Finally, one has to define the GRASP objectives to consume such a resource,
e.g. read/write actual memory. I guess this part is not necessarily part
of the intended scope of this draft, but could use other pre-existing
protocols, but it would help a lot of listing all thise bullet points and
pointing this out explicitly.
The draft has some of these aspects covered, but it seems very incomplete and
in parts confusing. Primarily also because it simply enumerates a long list of
possible resources in section 8.2, but does not provide enough specification
to actually implement in GRASP any single such resource management solution,
because there are no mentioning of relevant attributes to show where GRASP
could be better than existing mechanisms.
More problematic though is the implication that this draft can support
resource management like RSVP, aka: services for path properties. But then it
does
not explain how the resource management would work when like for a path, it
requires allocation of resources from multiple nodes together. Is there some
on-path signaling like in RSVP, NSIS ? Is there a central controller ? Does
it require some fixed path ? What happens when the path changes ? etc. pp.
And unlike compute, storage, memory resources, path resource management
has a tremendous number of RFCs specifying thousands of details - around TE,
RSVP, RSVP-TE, PCE, Netconf/YANG and so on. And there is no comparison or
even specific claims of why this GRASP approach would be beneficial for any
scenario in which these existing solutions work or where it is understood that
they could be adopted to.
So, i think it would be very useful to discuss primarily the intended scope
of the document before going into further details of the text.
For example, i think it would be very helpful to constrain the scope single-node
resource management and discuss the path resource issues/complexities only
in an appendix like section, pointing to the variety of existing protocols from
IETF and suggesting if any, some of the benefits the GRASP approach could have.
If this makes sense, then i would also suggest to select some example service
and on each step of the document discuss example details of that service.
Ideally, the service in question would already have one or more existing
consumption protocols and the GRASP solution could be presented as a
unifying single protocol to do discovery, negotiation, selection. Specifically
highlighting, that GRASP has network-based discovery, so it can operate without
the need of prior discovery servers (e.g.; no need to set up a DNS-SD server or
CORE-SD server for example)
I am not sure what the lowest-hanging fruit for such a service would be, e.g.:
the type of service for which this management aspect is least well supported
today.
I do not know a lot of details of remote memory access, but i can well imagine
how this mechanism could be nice for storage. On the other hand, for storage,
i can easily imagine a serious long list of service parameters ranging
from the consumption protocol (NFSv3, NFSv4, SMBv1, SMBv2, SMBv3, WebDAV, and a
lot more),
connection parameters (TCP, UDP, credentials), resilience of storage,
performance
parameters, maximum size, cost, number of files, maximum file size, etc. pp).
And storage
of course would have the nice aspect that it would easily allow negotiation of
several
of those parameters (such as maximum storage allowed, maximum through given to
client,
session credentials, sharing of the storage across multiple clients.
Aka: I think that as soon as we think of any specific service, it becomes clear
that this document can not be normative for even a small part of relevant spec
details, but can only point out how "easy" it is to use GRASP to define them.
Aka:
include text about formal specification of the data model via CDDL, and easy
extensibility, etc. pp.
In the end it would be good to evolve this document into one that has enough
details of one service so that a minium interoperable implementation could be
built from it. Not because this should be seen as a complete specification, but
only
to have a prac tical enough explanation that coders can make sense of it. And
then
highlight the benefits of GRASP, e.g.: why not use other protocols:
- lightweight, binary encoded, appropriate for LLN up to SP core networks.
- In-network discovery - no need to have third-party (services server)
dependencies
- Ability to find "closest" resource (network distance).
- separated security and transport substrate - can deploy GRASP on various such
substrates
- CDDL formal specifications of data model
- easily extensible service properties (as compared to DNS-SD TXT record
limits).
- negotation of consumption (not in DNS-SD, CORE-LF/CORE-SD).
...
And with this scope it would make a lot more sense to make this draft target
informational.
If this makes sense then i can provide further detail feednback after you've
tried to
come up with a version that attempts to re-scope the document this way.
If you want to keep the path-properties a core goal of the document than i'd
have to provide more feedback for that, but i think it would be a lot more
work, and
much less likely to get through IETF.
Cheers
Toerless
2 ANIMA S. Jiang, Ed.
3 Internet-Draft BUPT
4 Intended status: Standards Track J. Dang
5 Expires: 4 October 2024 Huawei
6 Z. Du
7 China Mobile
8 2 April 2024
10 A Generic Autonomic Deployment and Management Mechanism for Resource-
11 based Network Services
12 draft-ietf-anima-network-service-auto-deployment-06
14 Abstract
16 This document specifies an autonomic mechanism for resource-based
17 network services deployment and management, using the GeneRic
18 Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) to dynamically exchange the
19 information among the autonomic nodes. It supports the coordination
20 and consistently operations within an autonomic network domain. This
21 mechanism is generic for most, if not all, of kinds of network
22 resources, although this document only defines the process of quality
23 transmission service deployment and management. It can be easily
24 extended to support network services deployment and management that
25 is based on other types of network resources.
27 Status of This Memo
29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
42 This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 October 2024.
44 Copyright Notice
46 Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
47 document authors. All rights reserved.
49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
51 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
52 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
53 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
54 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
55 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
56 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
58 Table of Contents
60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
61 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
62 3. Terminology & Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
63 4. A Generic Auto-deployment Mechanism of Resource-based Network
64 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
65 4.1. Discover RM ASA on Proper Service Responsers . . . . . . 6
66 4.2. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
67 4.3. Negotiate Resource with Service Responser . . . . . . . . 6
68 4.4. Change Reserved Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
69 4.5. Releasing Resources during Service Ending . . . . . . . . 8
70 5. Autonomic Resource Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . 8
71 6. Process of the Quality Network Transmission Service
72 Auto-deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
73 6.1. Quality Transmission Service Scenario & Service Type . . 10
74 6.2. Negotiation between a Service Initiator and a Service
75 Responser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
76 6.3. Coordination among Multiple Service Responsers . . . . . 12
77 6.4. Service Ending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
78 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
79 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
80 8.1. Service type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
81 8.2. Resource Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
82 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
83 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
84 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
85 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
86 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
88 1. Introduction
90 Traditionally, IP networks are based on the best-efforts model. The
91 IP layer does not reserve resources for upper-layer applications.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
nit:
s/IP layer/IP protocols/
92 However, more and more emerging applications that require quality
93 services, such as video, VR, AR, and so on. They need supports from
94 steady network resources, such as bandwidth, queue, memory, priority,
95 computational resources, etc. On another side, from network side,
96 more and more generic services, such as quality transmission
97 services, in-network data cache services and computing services,
98 etc., are starting to be deployed so that networks can serve these
99 resource-consumption applications well. These network services are
nit:
Please provide references for "quality transmission services", "in-nework data
cache services", etc..
100 strongly based on the availability and stability of network
101 resources.
103 To enable these resource-based applications and services, IETF have
104 developed many resource reservation mechanisms, such as RSVP
105 [RFC2205] that is mainly to reserve bandwidth only and path-oriented,
nit:
When you say many, please cite at least one more example, ideally one most
different
from RSVP.
106 etc. However, most of them are mainly for reservation during the
107 deployment only and are rigid for dynamic adjustment. Furthermore,
nit:
It is unclear what other than "during the deployment only" means. Please
explain in text.
108 most of them are dedicated for a certain type of network resources.
110 This document introduces an enhanced and extensible mechanism that
111 supports dynamically dispatching of network resources, using the
112 GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) defined in [RFC8990] to
113 dynamically exchange the information among the autonomic nodes. Its
nit:
Please explain what "enhanced" means - readers assume enhanced compared to RSVP,
or any other prior mentioned example, but how ?
114 dynamic adjust ability is mainly enabled by the negotiation ability
115 defined by [RFC8990].
117 This mechanism is generic for most, if not all, of kinds of network
nit:
Generic itself is not very specific, but generic or not generic wrt. to a
specific
network resource is even less clear. Please explain.
118 resources. It can be easily extended to support network services
119 deployment and management that is based on other network resources.
nit:
Other "network resources" than what network resource ? Please explain in text.
120 It can be used, but no limited, in below network services scenarios:
122 * Quality transmission services. The quality could means guaranteed
nit:
Please provide a reference or explain what "quality transmission services"
means.
123 bandwidth, or jitter, etc. In order guarantee the quality of
124 transmission services, the network should reserve transmission
125 resource, particularly bandwidth or queues, on a selected path
126 from the ingress to the egress node. The dynamic resource
127 dispatching mechanism should ensure the consistent of reserved
128 resources on all the nodes in this path, particularly, when
129 dynamic changes are operated on this path.
131 * Difference transmission services. The network may provide
nit:
This probably should say "Differentiated Services" ?? If so, then please add
reference for DiffServ arch RFC, else explain or provide other reference for
what "Difference ... services" means.
132 different transmission services by putting the user packets into
133 different processes that have different resources, such as
134 bandwidth, queue length, priority, etc. The results would be
135 different user experience in delay and jitter, or even packet lose
136 rate.
138 * In network cache/storage services. The network may provide cache
139 or storage service by memory in the network devices or attached
140 devices. The idle memory space is the resource that need to be
141 request and managed. The location or distance of the memory is
142 also relevant to user experience.
nit:
Please provide a reference for any such network cache/storage service and any
existing means to manage their resources. I can imagine such a thing, but i am
not aware of anything in the IETF context (CDNI for example does not seem to
be about managing resources, but rather content). Likewise "idle memory" space.
It is unclear to me what even a simple example of network based memory
resource (idle or not) would be.
144 * Computing services. More and more spare computational resources
145 are from network providers. They may be idle computational cycles
146 on the network devices or deployed computational servers. The
147 occupation of these computational resources are time-sensitive.
148 Also, the location or distance of the computational resource is
149 relevant to user experience.
nit:
Same question about providing example reference.
If there are no useful referrences, then it would help to provide a simple
explanation of a use-case exemplifying such a service. E.g.: for memory
one could think of an application that needs more memory, so it tries to get
it from a "memory server" and consumes it via e.g.: proprietary protocols like
RoCEv2 (https://www.infinibandta.org/ibta-announces-new-roce-specification/).
151 * Information services. In some scenarios, network may be the best
152 information provider. It may be the information are from or
153 generated by network itself. Or the network has the best location
154 to provide the information.
nit:
reference and/or scenario.
156 The Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994] and the Bootstrapping
157 Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) [RFC8995] provide the secure
158 precondition for this mechanism.
nit:
We should always try to emphasize how the components provided by ANIMA can
support
each other but can also be used independently, e.g.:
s/provide ..."/may provide the secure precodnitions for this mechanism/.
Nevertheless, the meachanism as presented is not dependent on them but can
equally
be combined with other security mechanisms that support mutual authentication
between devices employing the mechanism proposed here.
160 This document defines an Autonomic Resource Management Objective in
161 Section 5. Three new corresponding registries are defined in
162 Section 8. This document defines the process of quality transmission
163 service deployment and management in Section 6.
165 2. Requirements Language
167 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
168 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
169 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
170 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
171 capitals, as shown here.
173 3. Terminology & Abbreviations
175 This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7575].
177 RM ASA: the Resource Manager ASA on an autonomic nodes. It manages
178 the local resources on the node, such as bandwidth, queue, memory,
179 priority, computational resources, etc. The RM ASA communicate with
180 other counterpart RM ASAs in order to dynamically dispatch network
181 resources within the autonomic network domain. This document assumes
182 all autonomic nodes have a RM ASA.
184 Service Initiator: the autonomic node that initiates and manages a
185 network service. It requests and dynamically adjusts the resources
186 of this network service through its RM ASA. Normally, a network
187 service SHALL have one service initiator within an autonomic network
188 domain. However, multiple Service Initiators model MAY also
189 operational if there were good synchronous or coordinate mechanisms
190 among them.
192 Service Responser: the autonomic node that responses to the requests
193 from the Service Initiator. It receives the requests through its RM
194 ASA, checks or operates on its local resources, and responds the
195 results to the Service Initiator. Typically, a network service MAY
196 involve multiple Service Responser. The consistency among them are
197 the responsibility of the Service Initiator.
199 4. A Generic Auto-deployment Mechanism of Resource-based Network
200 Services
202 This section describes the generic procedures of autonomic deployment
203 and management of the resource-based network services, as Figure1
204 shows. The detailed implementation or internal algorithms of the
205 Resource Manager ASAs are out of scope of this document. This
206 section does not cover the specific details that depend on certain
207 network services or certain type of network resources. The
208 prepositive operation that indicates the Service Initiator to start
209 the service deployment are out of scope. The information or reasons
210 that trigger the dynamic service changes are also out of scope.
212 | Node Discovery |
213 |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->|
214 +-----------------+ +-----------------+
215 | RM ASA | | RM ASA |
216 |Service Initiator| |Service Responser|
217 +-----------------+ ASA Discovery +-----------------+
218 |----------------------------------->|
219 | Authentication and Authorization |
220 |----------------------------------->|
221 | M_RESPONSE |
222 |<-----------------------------------|
223 | |
224 | Multiple rounds Negotiation |
225 |<---------------------------------->|
226 | on Resource Availability |
227 | |
228 | reserve the local resource
229 | |
230 ... ...
231 | Coordination with other RM ASAs |
232 |<---------------------------------->|
233 ... ...
234 | Service Ending |
235 |<---------------------------------->|
236 | release resources
238 Figure-1: generic procedures of autonomic deployment and management
240 4.1. Discover RM ASA on Proper Service Responsers
242 The Service Initiator MAY first discover the relevant network nodes
243 according to the service setup in order to reduce the node range of
244 sending GRASP Discovery message. It may be all the nodes on a giving
245 path or nodes that have idle resource available for giving service
246 condition, etc. The node discover methods can be pre-configured,
247 outbound discover, path detection, etc.
249 The Service Initiator SHOULD send out a GRASP Discovery message that
250 contains a Resource Manager Objective option defined in Section 5, in
251 which the network service is described. The Discovery message SHOULD
252 send to the reduced range nodes, by abovementioned mechanism, or all
253 nodes within the AN domain.
255 A RM ASA that receives the Discovery message with the Resource
256 Manager Objective option SHOULD check its satisfaction against the
257 service description. If meet, the node is a proper Service
258 Responser. It SHOULD respond a GRASP Response message back to the
259 Service Initiator.
261 Defined in the section 2.5.5.1 of [RFC8990], the Discovery message
262 MAY combine with the below negotiation process, if the rapid
263 negotiation function has been enabled network wide. If the rapid
264 negotiation function has been disabled, the process would fall back
265 to the normal discovery-only process.
267 4.2. Authentication and Authorization
269 In principle, any operations on resources MUST be authorized. The
270 Service Responser SHOULD check the authentication of the Service
271 Initiator and the authorization information for the operation it
272 requests. This document assumes all autonomic nodes within the AN
273 domain have been authenticated and their requested operations are
274 authorized, giving the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994] and
275 the Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) [RFC8995]
276 has provided the secure environment for this mechanism.
278 4.3. Negotiate Resource with Service Responser
280 After the discovery step, the RM ASA on the Service Initiator sends a
281 GRASP Request message with a Resource Manager Objective option, in
282 which the value of the requested resource is indicated.
284 When the RM ASA on a Service Responser receives a subsequent Request
285 message, it SHOULD conduct a GRASP negotiation sequence, using
286 Negotiate, Confirm Waiting, and Negotiation End messages as
287 appropriate. The Negotiate messages carry a Resource Manager
288 Objective option, which will indicate the resource type and value
289 offered to the requesting RM ASA.
291 During the negotiation, the RM ASA on the Service Responser will
292 decide at each step how much resource can be offered. That decision,
293 and the decision to end the negotiation, are implementation choices.
294 A resource shortage on the Service Responser may cause it to indicate
295 the existing available value within a Resource Manager Objective
296 option back to the Service Initiator. The Service Initiator might
297 decide whether to accept the request of the resource. If not, the RM
298 ASA on the Service Initiator MAY terminate the negotiation via
299 Negotiation End messages.
301 Upon completion of the negotiation, the Service Responser reserves
302 its local resources. The Service Initiator may use the negotiated
303 resource after receiving synchronization message without further
304 messages.
306 Normally, a network service SHALL have one service initiator within
307 an autonomic network domain. It is the Service Initiator's
308 responsibility to manage the service and coordinate among multiple
309 Service Responsers to ensure the consistent of reserved resources.
311 4.4. Change Reserved Resources
313 After the process of automatic resource management mechanism, RM ASAs
314 are allowed to change and negotiate the resource requirements. In
315 the lifetime of network services, there may be many reasons that the
316 service has to be changed upon with its reserved resources. Resource
317 Manager ASA needs to be able to handle resource changes in a timely
318 manner to meet service requirements.
320 During the renegotiation process, RM ASA on the Service Initiator
321 resends the service's resource requirements by using Resource Manager
322 GRASP Objective. RM ASA on the Service Responser receives the
323 resource negotiation message and makes the determination. If the
324 resource requirements are lower than those allocated or/and less
325 lifetime than previous, the Service Responser SHOULD directly confirm
326 the information and release the excess resources. If more resources
327 or lifetime are required, RM ASA on the Service Responser SHOULD
328 treat it as a brand-new request and make decision or further
329 negotiation. The bottom line is the Service Responser MUST allow the
330 Service Initiator fall back to previous allocated resource, both on
331 volume and lifetime.
333 RM ASAs on the Service Responsers MUST NOT change existing resource
334 allocation until the new negotiation on resource changes is complete.
336 4.5. Releasing Resources during Service Ending
338 After the service is completed or expired, the reserved network
339 resources MUST be released so that network resources can be used more
340 efficiently. If the service lifetime expires, the Service Responser
341 MUST release its local resources and MAY send a Synchronization
342 message to the Service Initiator to notify the state change of its
343 local resources. If the Service Initiator wants to end the service
344 before the service lifetime expires, the Service Initiator MUST send
345 a negotiation message to the Service Responsers to request the
346 network resource to be changed to zero. Upon completion of the
347 negotiation, the Service Responser releases the resources occupied by
348 the service.
350 5. Autonomic Resource Management Objectives
352 This section defines the GRASP technical objective options that are
353 used to support autonomic resource management. Resource Manager
354 GRASP Objective allows multiple types of resources to be requested
355 simultaneously.
357 The Resource Manager Objective option is a GRASP Objective option
358 conforming to the GRASP specification [RFC8990]. Its name is
359 "Resource Manager", and it carries the following data items as its
360 value: the resource value. Since GRASP is based on CBOR (Concise
361 Binary Object Representation) [RFC8949], the format of the Resource
362 Manager Objective option is described in the Concise Data Definition
363 Language (CDDL) [RFC8610] as follows:
365 objective = ["Resource Manager", objective-flags, loop-count,
366 ?objective-value]
368 objective-name = "Resource Manager"
370 objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag ; as in the GRASP
371 specification
373 loop-count = 0..255 ; as in the GRASP specification
374 The 'objective-value' field expresses the actual value of a
375 negotiation or synchronization objective. So a new objective-value
376 named autonomic-network-service-value is defined for Network Service
377 Auto-deployment as follows. The autonomic node can know that it is
378 serving Network Service Auto-deployment according to the objective-
379 value after receiving the GRASP message. The 'objective value'
380 contains two parts, one represents the information of the service
381 itself, and the other represents the requirements of resources.
383 objective-value = autonomic-network-service-value; An autonomic-
384 network-service-value is defined as Figure-2.
386 autonomic-network-service-value =
387 [
388 [
389 service-type,
390 service-id,
391 service-lifetime,
392 service-tag
393 ],[
394 *resource-requirement-pair
395 ]
396 ]
398 Figure-2: Format of autonomic-network-service-value-value
400 service-type = 0..7
402 service-id = uint
404 service-lifetime = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
406 service-tag = [ *service-tag-info]
408 The combination service-type and the service-id MUST uniquely
409 represent a network service within the network. The uniqueness of
410 the combination service-type and the service-id SHOULD be guaranteed
411 by an allocation mechanism that is out of scope of this document.
413 The allocation of resources MUST specify the lifetime. The service-
414 lifetime represents the usage time of the resources required by the
415 service.
417 The service-tag contains other information that describes the
418 service. This information is not necessary, but will affect the
419 policy for RM ASA resource reservation.
421 The resource-requirement-pair describes the resource requirements and
422 it is defined as Figure-3. Resource requirements of different types
423 can be described in an objective option. The Resource Manager
424 objective option supports multi-faceted resource requirements and
425 negotiation. These resource requirements are all in pairs, described
426 by resource type and resource value.
428 resource-requirement-pair =
429 [
430 resource-type,
431 resource-value
432 ]
434 Figure-3: Format of resource-requirement-pair
436 resource-type = 0..7
438 resource-value = uint
440 6. Process of the Quality Network Transmission Service Auto-deployment
442 6.1. Quality Transmission Service Scenario & Service Type
444 The quality transmission service scenario is the most important
445 resource negotiation scenario. In this scenario, RM ASAs negotiate
446 the resource that will affect the transmission quality. The basic
447 resource is bandwidth and other types of resources such as queue can
448 be required at the same time.
450 The autonomic deployment and management of the quality transmission
451 service includes the Service Initiator and the Service Responsers all
452 have RM ASA. The Service Initiator is the resource demander, which
453 ensures the connection of services through negotiation resources with
454 RM ASAs in the domain network. Service Responsers are the nodes
455 which packets are forwarded in the transmission scenario and Service
456 Initiator asks resource from them. These nodes can be discovered
457 through RM ASA discovery process or path discovery methods.
459 Negotiation Resource
460 +-------------------------------------------------------------+
461 | Negotiation Resource |
462 | +--------------------------------------------+ |
463 | | | |
464 +--------+ Negotiation Resource +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
465 | RM ASA |<-------------------->| RM ASA | | RM ASA | | RM ASA |
466 +--------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
467 | SI | -------------------->| SR Node |-->| SR Node |-->| SR Node |
468 +--------+ Transmit data +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
469 Figure-3 shows how RM ASAs negotiate resources and how Service
470 Initiator forwards packages. The RM ASA on the Service Initiator
471 negotiates resources with the RM ASAs on the Service Responsers one
472 by one.
474 Figure-3: Negotiation procedure of a transmission service
476 6.2. Negotiation between a Service Initiator and a Service Responser
478 In the process of negotiation, Service Initiator negotiates resources
479 with Service Responsers and ensures resources enough. RM ASAs are
480 allowed to negotiate resources for multiple rounds. It often happens
481 that the network resources on one node cannot meet the resources
482 required by the service, but the service is willing to reduce its
483 resource requirements to ensure the successful deployment of the
484 service. The RM ASAs on the Service Responsers feedback the maximum
485 available resources using Resource Management Objectives in the
486 response message. The RM ASA on the Service Initiator changes the
487 resource requirements according to the specific requirements of the
488 received resources and services, to carry out the next round of
489 service negotiation.
491 +----------+ +---------+
492 | RM ASA | | RM ASA |
493 +----------+ +---------+
494 | SI | | SR Node |
495 +----------+ [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,10]]] +---------+
496 |------------------------------------------->|
497 | [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,8]]] |
498 |<-------------------------------------------|
499 | [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,8]]] |
500 |------------------------------------------->|
501 | Negotiation End (ACCEPT) |
502 |<-------------------------------------------|
504 Figure-4 shows an example of a negotiation process. In the first
505 negotiation round, RM ASA on the Service Initiator wants to get
506 resource from RM ASA on the Service Responsers. In this example, the
507 service type is Transmission Service and service-id is 36732. The
508 service will last 3600 seconds and only ask for one kind of resource
509 10 Mbit/s bandwidth. So, the autonomic-network-service-value is
510 [[0,36732,3600000,[]][[0,10]]].
512 Figure-4: an example of a negotiation process
514 When RM ASA on the Service Responser Node receives the message, if
515 the RM ASA thinks the network can offer this required resource, it
516 will response the ACCEPT. But if it does not meet the request, it
517 will give how much resource it can offer. In this example, the
518 Service Responser can offer 8 Mbit/s. The next step, RM ASA on the
519 Service Initiator needs to decide whether to change its resource
520 requirements according to the reply, and sends a next round
521 negotiation. Then, RM ASA on the Service Responser finds the new
522 resource requirement, it can meet. So, it will response ACCEPT.
523 This is an example how ASAs negotiate resources.
525 6.3. Coordination among Multiple Service Responsers
527 The Service Initiator decides a coordinated value of resource and
528 negotiates with multiple Service Responsers that need to reduce the
529 locked resource. The Service Responsers reserve resources for
530 service according to the negotiation results. If the operation is
531 successful, the Service Responser reply success message to the
532 Service Initiator. If it fails, reply failure message to the Service
533 Initiator. And the Service Initiator will restart negotiation step.
535 When the Service Initiator receives the success message from all the
536 Service Responsers, the service can start to transmit the message.
538 6.4. Service Ending
540 When the service is ended, it is the responsibility of Service
541 Initiator to release all reserved resources through the dialogue with
542 the RM ASA on the Service Responser. And if the service lifetime is
543 exceeded, the Service Initiator SHOULD also release reserved resource
544 although the Service Responsers may release the reserved resource by
545 themselves.
547 7. Security Considerations
549 It complies with GRASP security considerations. Relevant security
550 issues are discussed in [RFC8990]. The preferred security model is
551 that devices are trusted following the secure bootstrap procedure
552 [RFC8995] and that a secure Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994]
553 is in place.
555 8. IANA Considerations
557 This document defines a new GRASP Objective option names: "Resource
558 Manager" which need to be added to the "GRASP Objective Names"
559 registry defined by [RFC8990]. And this document defines a new
560 registry tables "service-type" and "resource-type" under the
561 "Resource Manager" GRASP Objective. The following subsections
562 describe the new parameters.
564 8.1. Service type
566 IANA has set up the "service-type" registry, which contains 4-bit
567 value. The service-type defines the type of service which is used to
568 describe the type of resource requirements.
570 * 0 : Transmission Service
572 * 1 : Computing Service
574 8.2. Resource Type
576 IANA has set up the "resource-type" registry, which contains 4-bit
577 value.
579 * 0 : bandwidth
581 * 1 : queue
583 * 2 : memery
585 * 3 : priority
587 * 4 : cache
589 * 5 : computing
591 9. Acknowledgements
593 Valuable comments were received from Michael Richardson and Brian
594 Carpenter. Contributions to early versions of this document was made
595 by Yujing Zhou.
597 10. References
599 10.1. Normative References
601 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
602 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
603 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
604 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
606 [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
607 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
608 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
609 September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
611 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
612 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
613 May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
615 [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
616 Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
617 Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
618 JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
619 June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
621 [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
622 Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
623 DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
624 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
626 [RFC8990] Bormann, C., Carpenter, B., Ed., and B. Liu, Ed., "GeneRic
627 Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)", RFC 8990,
628 DOI 10.17487/RFC8990, May 2021,
629 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8990>.
631 [RFC8994] Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason, "An
632 Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994,
633 DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021,
634 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8994>.
636 [RFC8995] Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.,
637 and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
638 Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10.17487/RFC8995,
639 May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8995>.
641 10.2. Informative References
643 [RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
644 Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
645 Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
646 DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
647 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
649 Authors' Addresses
651 Sheng Jiang (editor)
652 Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
653 No. 10 Xitucheng Road
654 Beijing
655 Haidian District, 100083
656 China
657 Email: [email protected]
658 Joanna Dang
659 Huawei
660 No.156 Beiqing Road
661 Beijing
662 P.R. China, 100095
663 China
664 Email: [email protected]
666 Zongpeng Du
667 China Mobile
668 32 Xuanwumen West Street
669 Beijing
670 P.R. China, 100053
671 China
672 Email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
