[Sdnp] Proposed SDN BOF charter

[Anton Ivanov]

[snip]

>> There is a bit of a misunderstanding - I want to put the foundation 
>> in order to be able to figure out the inter-domain case. I want to 
>> have that foundation day one, but I have no intention of figuring out 
>> the case itself day one.
>
> I think that is achievable insofar as we will need to define HA 
> capabilities from day 1, which requires SDN Conductor-to-SDN Conductor 
> communication.

Hmm... That is an interesting one...

You probably need that one if you want to have different Conductors (and 
different implementations) interoperating as a part of the same admin 
domain and commanding the same devices. In that case needing a 
Conductor-to-Conductor protocol is the easiest option.

You can however have HA without a standardized SDNC-to-SDNC 
implementation and in fact that is way easier to implement (just 
snapshot database regularly from master to slave or use HA database in 
the back with appropriate locking). That however automatically makes the 
case of "multiple different conductor implementations"in the same admin 
domain nearly impossible.

It does not prohibit multidomain though.

In a multidomain instead of using SDNC-to-SDNC (which you can also use 
for HA) you use SDNC talking as an SDN Client to another SDNC (aka the 
"russian dolls").

The latter will make adoption and implementation easier. One less 
critical thing to implement. All you need to specify is the client 
protocol and how it works internally is "none of our business".

The former is neater and better in the long run.

Both have their advantages...

-- 
     Humans are allergic to change. They love to say, "We've always
done it this way." I try to fight that. That's why I have a clock
on my wall that runs counter-clockwise.   -- R.A. Grace Hopper

A. R. Ivanov
E-mail:  anton.ivanov at kot-begemot.co.uk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lucidvision.com/pipermail/sdnp/attachments/20110921/8d89547d/attachment.htm>