Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA Violations
draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-05

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (nmrg RG)
Last updated 2017-01-29
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                       University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos
Intended status: Informational                              L. Granville
Expires: August 2, 2017          Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
                                                                A. Clemm
                                                                  Huawei
                                                               A. Prieto
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        January 29, 2017

     Autonomic Networking Use Case for Distributed Detection of SLA
                               Violations
          draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-sla-violation-detection-05

Abstract

   This document describes a use case for autonomic networking in
   distributed detection of Service Level Agreement (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 August 2, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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

Nobre, et al.            Expires August 2, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   AN Use Case Detection of SLA Violations    January 2017

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   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.  Definitions and Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Current Approaches  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Benefits of an Autonomic Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Intended User and Administrator Experience  . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Analysis of Parameters and Information Involved . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Device Based Self-Knowledge and Decisions . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Interaction with other devices  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Comparison with current solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Related IETF Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The Internet has been growing dramatically in terms of size and
   capacity, and accessibility in the last years.  Communication
   requirements of distributed services and applications running on top
   of the Internet have become increasingly demanding.  Some examples
   are real-time interactive video or financial trading.  Providing such
   services involves stringent requirements in terms of acceptable
   latency, loss, or jitter.  Those requirements lead to the
   articulation of Service Level Objectives (SLOs) which are to be met.
   Those SLOs become part of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that
   articulate a contract between the provider and the consumer of a
   service.  To fulfill a service, it needs to be ensured that the SLOs
   are met.  Examples of service fulfillment clauses can be found on
   [RFC7297]).  Violations of SLOs can be associated with significant
   financial loss, which can by divided in two types.  First, there is
   the loss incurred by the service users (e.g., the trader whose orders
Show full document text