Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] pros & cons of draft-sun-opsawg-sdwan-service-model aligning with MEF SD-WAN or ONUG SD-WAN

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 16:19:02 +0800

Hi, Linda

Thank you for your detailed analysis of the ONUG and MEF SD-WAN service
models. This is very helpful.

We are proposing to define the SD-WAN service model in the IETF so that the
SD-WAN model can be used together with L3SM and L2SM for consistent modeling
methods.

About the relationship of the models designed by MEF and ONUG, we are
considering the following approaches:

1. Add text to reference ONUG SD-WAN architecture and align with ONUG
service models.

1) The Path service model is a common policy model which also applies to
intra-domain, and our draft has a similar model called path selection
policy.

2) The Reachability service model will be referenced for interworking
between different vendor domains. 

2. Add text for reference and analysis when MEF publish the SD-WAN
specification.

发件人: OPSAWG <[email-masked]> 代表 Linda Dunbar
发送时间: 2019年1月7日 10:23
收件人: [email-masked]; Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[email-masked]>
抄送: [email-masked]
主题: [OPSAWG] pros & cons of draft-sun-opsawg-sdwan-service-model aligning
with MEF SD-WAN or ONUG SD-WAN

I watched the video recording of IETF 103 OPSAwg session over the Christmas
break and want to add some comments (as I missed attending the session in
Bangkok due to conflicts). 

Both MEF and ONUG have SD-WAN related initiatives. As Charles Eckel stated
in the opsawg IETF 103 session that MEF is more from service provider’s
perspective, whereas ONUG is more from single vendor’s perspective. 

ONUG has Path Service model and Reachability service models, the purpose of
the Path Service model is to normalize the service specification, so that it
could be implemented through any vendor’s controller (via API support).
Same for Reachability Service.  The goal is to be able to configure services
within a vendor domain through a single API, with defined service behaviors.

So the requirements from MEF and ONUG are for different entity, I am not
sure if we can create one service models for both MEF and ONUG. 

Reading through the draft-sun-opsawg-sdwan-service-model, I feel it is more
from service providers’ perspective, i.e. more aligned with MEF. 

I agree with AD Ignas’ saying that we need to define service model per ONUG
user community provided requirement. 

The problem is that the requirements from ONUG User community are very high
level (e.g. “aggregate paths from N service providers to access hybrid
clouds”), which can’t be directly translated to service model
requirements. Engineers, like IETF community, have to bear the burden to
derive the detailed executable service model from the high level requirement
from User Community. I think a more realistic method is to bring the IETF
service modes to MEF and ONUG to be validated.   

Best Regards, 

Linda Dunbar