Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA Violations
draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (nmrg RG)
Last updated 2014-06-23
Stream IRTF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
IETF conflict review conflict-review-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection
Additional URLs
- Mailing list discussion
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Management Research Group                               J. Nobre
Internet-Draft                                              L. Granville
Intended status: Informational   Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Expires: December 22, 2014                                      A. Clemm
                                                               A. Prieto
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                           June 20, 2014

     Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA
                               Violations
          draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-00

Abstract

   This document describes a use case for autonomic networking in
   distributed detection of SLA violations.  It is one of a series of
   use cases intended to illustrate requirements for autonomic
   networking.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must

Nobre, et al.           Expires December 22, 2014               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   AN Use Case Detection of SLA Violations       June 2014

   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Benefits of an Autonomic Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Intended User and Administrator Experience  . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Analysis of Parameters and Information Involved . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Device Based Self-Knowledge and Decisions . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Interaction with other devices  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  Information needed from Intent  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Monitoring, diagnostics and reporting . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Comparison with current solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Related IETF Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The Internet has been improving dramatically in terms of size and
   capacity, and accessibility in the last years.  Besides that, the
   communication requirements of distributed services and applications
   running on top of the Internet have become increasingly accurate.
   Performance issues caused by violations on these requirements usually
   present significant financial loss to organizations and end users.
   Thus, the service level requirements of critical networked services
   provided have become a critical concern for network administrators.
   To ensure that SLAs are not being violated, which would usually incur
   in costly penalties, service levels need to be constantly monitored
   at the network infrastructure layer.  To that end, network
   measurements must take place.  Network measurement mechanisms are
   performed through either active or passive measurement techniques.
   In passive measurement, network conditions are said to be checked in
   a non intrusive way because no monitoring traffic is created by the
   measurement process itself.  In the context of IP Flow Information
   EXport (IPFIX) WG, several documents were produced to define passive
Show full document text