Wei, Thank you very much for the review and a very good question. Please see below for the detailed answer:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 5:48 PM Wei Wang <weiwan...@foxmail.com> wrote: > HI Linda, > > The case in this draft is very typical in the illustration of network > operation for telecom cloud, thank for your effort. I have one question > regarding the model: What if the network between the access point and edge > cloud data center is typical Internet network, which is not TE based, what > model can be used? > [Linda] That is a very good question. By the way, we have updated the draft with SRv6 and TE underlay added: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-neotec-ac-te-applicability/ To address your question, we might need to add some study of Non-TE-Based or Internet-Backed PE-PE Networks: In Non-TE-Based or Internet-Backed PE-PE Networks, basic connectivity and performance data may still be obtained using existing IETF YANG models such as: - RFC 8343 (YANG Data Model for Interface Management) and RFC 8344 ( YANG Data Model for IP Management) for interface and IP layer status - ietf-routing [RFC8349] to understand basic forwarding paths and route preferences - Operational telemetry models for real-time monitoring of metrics like: * Interface utilization * Packet loss * Round-trip time (RTT) * Jitter (if measured using active probes or synthetic monitoring) In these cases, instead of path-level traffic engineering, the orchestrator or Cloud Manager can query and interpret per-hop or per-segment interface metrics, or use active measurements (e.g., IP SLA-like probes) to estimate end-to-end path characteristics. These inputs can inform workload placement decisions, albeit without the deterministic path selection and enforcement that TE-based architectures allow. Neotec’s API framework can abstract these differences by returning consistent metrics (e.g., latency, bandwidth availability), regardless of whether they are derived from TE topology models or measured heuristically in best-effort environments. Linda > Thanks > Wei > > ---Original--- > *From:* "Linda Dunbar"<linda.dun...@futurewei.com> > *Date:* Fri, Apr 18, 2025 10:32 AM > *To:* "neo...@ietf.org"<neo...@ietf.org>;"'opsawg'"<opsawg@ietf.org>;" > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com"<mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; > *Cc:* "Joel Halpern Direct"<jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com>;"Mahesh > Jethanandani"<mjethanand...@gmail.com>; > *Subject:* [OPSAWG]Feedback Wanted: Is Attachment Circuit YANG Sufficient > for Neotec Use Case? > > Med, > > Following your suggestion during IETF 122 for us to take a simple Neotec > use case and "do our homework" by applying existing IETF YANG > models—specifically the Attachment Circuit model— we’ve completed an > initial exercise and documented it in the following draft: > > *"Applicability of Attachment Circuit and TE YANG Models to a Neotec Use > Case"* > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-neotec-ac-te-applicability/ > > Our goal with this draft is to evaluate whether the AC and TE YANG models > are sufficient to support the selected use case, and to identify any > potential modeling or architectural gaps. This is intended as an > exploratory step to evaluate whether there is substantive, > standards-relevant work that could justify a Neotec WG. > > We would greatly appreciate your feedback: Does this exercise align with > what you envisioned? Are we on the right track? Any guidance or suggestions > on how to refine the framing would be greatly appreciated. > > Cc'ing the opsawg mailing list here in case others would like to help us > evaluate the approach and share perspectives on the usefulness of this line > of inquiry. > > Best regards, > Linda > > > _______________________________________________ > neotec mailing list -- neo...@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to neotec-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
