Network Working Group                                       M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                              C. Jacquenet
Intended status: Informational                            France Telecom
Expires: December 07, 2013                                 June 05, 2013


     Software-Defined Networking: A Service Provider's Perspective
                    draft-sin-sdnrg-sdn-approach-03

Abstract

   Software-Defined Networking (SDN) has been one of the major buzz
   words of the networking industry for the past couple of years.  And
   yet, no clear definition of what SDN actually covers has been broadly
   admitted so far.  This document aims at contributing to the
   clarification of the SDN landscape by discussing a service provider's
   perspective on requirements, issues and other considerations about
   SDN.

   It is not meant to endlessly discuss what SDN truly means, but rather
   to suggest a functional taxonomy of the techniques that can be used
   under a SDN umbrella and to elaborate on the various pending issues
   the combined activation of such techniques inevitably raises.  As
   such, a definition of SDN is only mentioned for the sake of
   clarification.

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 07, 2013.









Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Introducing Software-Defined Networking . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  A Tautology?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  On Flexibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  A Tentative Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Functional Meta-Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  A Few Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Remember The Past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Be Pragmatic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Measure Experience Against Expectations . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Design Carefully  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  There Is Life Beyond OpenFlow . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.6.  Non Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Implications Of Full Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  The Intelligence Resides In The PDP . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  Simplicity And Adaptability Vs. Complexity  . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.  Performance And Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.5.  Risk Assessement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.6.  On Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15









Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


1.  Introduction

   The Internet has become the federative network that supports a wide
   range of service offerings.  The delivery of network services such as
   IP VPNs assumes the combined activation of various capabilities that
   include (but are not necessarily limited to) forwarding and routing
   capabilities (e.g., customer-specific addressing scheme management,
   dynamic path computation to reach a set of destination prefixes,
   dynamic establishment of tunnels, etc.), quality of service
   capabilities (e.g., traffic classification and marking, traffic
   conditioning and scheduling), security capabilities (e.g., filters to
   protect customer premises from network-originated attacks, to avoid
   malformed route announcements, etc.) and management capabilities
   (e.g., fault detection and processing).

   As these services not only grow in variety but also in complexity,
   their design, delivery and operation have become a complex alchemy
   that often requires various levels of expertise.  This situation is
   further aggravated by the wide variety of (network) protocols and
   tools, as well as recent Any Time Any-Where Any Device
   (ATAWAD)-driven convergence trends that are meant to make sure an
   end-user can access the whole range of services he/she has subscribed
   to, whatever the access and device technologies, wherever the end-
   user is connected to the network, and whether this end-user is in
   motion or not.

   Yet, most of these services have been deployed for the past decade,
   primarily based upon often static service production procedures that
   are more and more exposed to the risk of erroneous configuration
   commands.  In addition, most of these services do not assume any
   specific negotiation between the customer and the service provider or
   between service providers besides the typical financial terms.

   At best, five-year master plans are referred to as the network
   planning policy that will be enforced by the service provider, given
   the foreseen business development perspectives, manually-computed
   traffic forecasts and the market coverage (fixed/mobile, residential/
   corporate).  This so-called network planning policy may very well
   affect the way resources are allocated in a network, but clearly
   fails to be adequately responsive to highly dynamic customer
   requirements in an "always-on" fashion.  The need for improved
   service delivery procedures (including the time it takes to deliver
   the service once possible negotiation phase is completed) is even
   more critical for corporate customers.

   In addition, various tools are used for different, sometimes service-
   centric, management purposes but their usage is not necessarily
   coordinated for the sake of event aggregation, correlation and



Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   processing.  At the cost of extra complexity and possible customer's
   Quality of Experience degradation.

   Multi-service, multi-protocol, multi-technology convergent and
   dynamically-adaptive networking environments of the near future have
   therefore become one of the major challenges faced by service
   providers.

   This document aims at clarifying the SDN landscape.

2.  Introducing Software-Defined Networking

2.1.  A Tautology?

   The separation of the forwarding and control planes (beyond
   implementation considerations) have almost become a gimmick to
   promote flexibility as a key feature of the SDN approach.
   Technically, most of current router implementations have been
   assuming this separation for decades.  Routing processes (such as IGP
   and BGP route computation) have often been software-based, while
   forwarding capabilities are hardware-encoded.

   As such, the current state-of-the-art tends to confirm the said
   separation, which rather falls under a tautology.

   But a somewhat centralized, "controller-embedded", control plane for
   the sake of optimized route computation before FIB population is
   certainly another story.

2.2.  On Flexibility

   This "flexibility argument" that has been put forward by SDN
   promoters is undoubtedly one of the key objectives that must be
   achieved by service providers.  This is because the ability to
   dynamically adapt to a wide range of customer's requests for the sake
   of flexible network service delivery is an important competitive
   advantage.  But flexibility is much, much more than separating the
   control and forwarding planes to facilitate forwarding decision-
   making processes.

   For example, the ability to accommodate short duration extra
   bandwidth requirements so that end users can stream a video file to
   their 4G terminal device is an example of that flexibility that
   several mobile operators are currently investigating.

   From this perspective, the ability to predict the network behavior as
   a function of the network services to be delivered is of paramount
   importance for service providers, so that they can assess the impact



Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   of introducing new services or activating additional network features
   or enforcing a given set of (new) policies from both a financial and
   technical standpoints.  This argues in favor of investigating
   advanced network emulation engines, which can be fed with information
   that can be derived from [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution], for example.

   Given the rather broad scope that the flexibility wording suggests:

   o  The exact characterization of what flexibility actually means is
      still required.
   o  The exposure of programmable interfaces is not a goal per se,
      rather a means to facilitate configuration procedures for the sake
      of improved flexibility.

2.3.  A Tentative Definition

   We define Software-Defined Networking as the set of techniques used
   to facilitate the design, the delivery and the operation of network
   services in a deterministic, dynamic, and scalable manner.

   Such a definition assumes the introduction of a high level of
   automation in the overall service delivery and operation procedures.

   Because networking is software-driven by nature, the above definition
   does not emphasize the claimed "Software-Defined" properties of SDN-
   labeled solutions.

2.4.  Functional Meta-Domains

   SDN techniques can be classified into the following functional meta-
   domains:

   o  Techniques for the dynamic discovery of network topology, devices
      and capabilities, along with relevant information models that are
      meant to precisely document such topology, devices and
      capabilities.
   o  Techniques for exposing network services (and their
      characteristics; e.g.,
      [I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile]) and for
      dynamically negotiating the set of service parameters that will be
      used to measure the level of quality associated to the delivery of
      a given service or a combination thereof.
   o  Techniques used by service requirements-derived dynamic resource
      allocation and policy enforcement schemes, so that networks can be
      programmed accordingly.  Decisions made to dynamically allocate
      resources and enforce policies are typically the result of the
      correlation of various inputs, such as the status of available
      resources in the network at any given time, the number of customer



Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


      service subscription requests that need to be processed over a
      given period of time, the traffic forecasts and the possible need
      to trigger additional resource provisioning cycles according to a
      typical multi-year master plan, etc.
   o  Dynamic feedback mechanisms that are meant to assess how
      efficiently a given policy (or a set thereof) is enforced from a
      service fulfillment and assurance perspective.

3.  A Few Considerations

   The networking ecosystem has become awfully complex and highly
   demanding in terms of robustness, performance, scalability,
   flexibility, agility, etc.  This means in particular that service
   providers and network operators must deal with such complexity and
   operate networking infrastructures that can evolve easily, remain
   scalable, guarantee robustness and availability, and are resilient
   against denial-of-service attacks.

   The introduction of new SDN-based networking features should
   obviously take into account this context, especially from a cost
   impact assessment perspective.

3.1.  Remember The Past

   SDN techniques are not the next big thing per se, but rather a kind
   of rebranding of proposals that have been investigated for several
   years, like Active or Programmable Networks.  As a matter of fact,
   some of the claimed "new" SDN features have been already implemented
   (e.g., NMS (Network Management System), PCE (Path Computation
   Element, [RFC4655])), and supported by vendors for quite some time
   (references can be added if needed).

   Some of these features have also been standardized (e.g., DNS-based
   routing [RFC1383] that can be seen as an illustration of separated
   control and forwarding planes or ForCES ([RFC5810][RFC5812])).

   Also, the Policy-Based Management framework[RFC2753] introduced in
   the early 2000's was designed to orchestrate available resources, by
   means of a typical Policy Decision Point (PDP) which masters advanced
   offline traffic engineering capabilities.  As such, this framework
   has the ability to interact with in-band software modules embedded in
   controlled devices (or not).









Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   The Policy Decision Point (PDP) is where policy decisions are made.
   PDPs use a directory service for policy repository purposes.  The
   policy repository stores the policy information that can be retrieved
   and updated by the PDP.  The PDP delivers policy rules to the Policy
   Enforcement Point (PEP) in the form of policy-provisioning
   information that includes configuration information.

   The Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) is where policy decisions are
   applied.  PEPs are embedded in (network) devices, which are
   dynamically configured based upon the policy-formatted information
   that has been processed by the PEP.  PEPs request configuration from
   the PDP, store the configuration information in the Policy
   Information Base (PIB), and delegate any policy decision to the PDP.

   SDN techniques as a whole are an instantiation of the policy-based
   network management framework.  Within this context, SDN techniques
   can be used to activate capabilities on demand, to dynamically invoke
   network and storage resources and to operate dynamically-adaptive
   networks according to events (e.g., alteration of the network
   topology) and triggers (e.g., dynamic notification of a link
   failure), etc.

3.2.  Be Pragmatic

   SDN approaches should be holistic, i.e., global, network-wise.  It is
   not a matter of configuring devices one by one to enforce a specific
   forwarding policy.  SDN techniques are about configuring and
   operating a whole range of devices at the scale of the network for
   the sake of automated service delivery
   ([I-D.boucadair-network-automation-requirements]), from service
   negotiation and creation (e.g., [I-D.ietf-idr-sla-exchange]) to
   assurance and fulfillment.

   Because the complexity of activating SDN capabilities is largely
   hidden to the end-user and software-handled, a clear understanding of
   the overall ecosystem is needed to figure out how to manage this
   complexity and to what extent this hidden complexity does not have
   side effects on network operation.

   As an example, SDN designs that assume a central decision-making
   entity must avoid single points of failure.  They must not affect
   packet forwarding performances either (e.g., transit delays must not
   be impacted).

   SDN techniques are not necessary to develop new network services per
   se.  The basic service remains (IP) connectivity that solicits
   resources located in the network.  SDN techniques can thus be seen as
   another means to interact with network service modules and invoke



Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   both connectivity and storage resources accordingly in order to meet
   service-specific requirements.

   By definition, SDN technique activation and operation remain limited
   to what is supported by embedded software and hardware.  One cannot
   expect SDN techniques to support unlimited customizable features.

3.3.  Measure Experience Against Expectations

   Because several software modules may be controlled by external
   entities, means to ensure that what has been delivered complies with
   what has been negotiated belong to the set of SDN techniques.

   These typical policy-based techniques should interact with both
   Service Structuring engines (that are meant to expose the service
   characteristics and to possibly negotiate those characteristics) and
   the network to continuously assess whether the experienced network
   behavior is compliant with the objectives set by the Service
   Structuring engine, and which may have been dynamically negotiated
   with the customer (e.g., as captured in a CPP
   [I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile],
   [I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-protocol]).  This
   requirement applies to several regions of a network, including:

   1.  At the interface between two adjacent IP network providers.
   2.  At the access interface between a service provider and an IP
       network provider.
   3.  At the interface between a customer and the IP network provider.

   Ideally, a fully automated service delivery procedure from
   negotiation and ordering, through order processing, to delivery,
   assurance and fulfillment, should be supported.  This approach
   assumes widely adopted standard data and information models, let
   alone interfaces.

3.4.  Design Carefully

   Exposing open and programmable interfaces has a cost, from both a
   scalability and performance standpoints.

   Maintaining hard-coded performance optimization techniques is
   encouraged.  So is the use of interfaces that allow the direct
   control of some engines (e.g., routing, forwarding) without requiring
   any in-between adaptation layer (generic objects to vendor-specific
   CLI commands for instance).






Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   SDN techniques will have to accommodate vendor-specific components
   anyway.  Indeed, these vendor-specific features will not cease to
   exist mainly because of the harsh competition.

   The introduction of new functions or devices that may jeopardize
   network flexibility should be avoided, or at least carefully
   considered in light of possible performance and scalability impacts.
   SDN-enabled devices will have to coexist with legacy systems.

   One single SDN, network-wise deployment is therefore very unlikely.
   Instead, multiple instantiations of SDN techniques will be
   progressively deployed and adapted to various network and service
   segments.

3.5.  There Is Life Beyond OpenFlow

   Empowering networking with in-band controllable modules does not
   necessarily mean the use of the OpenFlow protocol, which is just
   another protocol that helps devices populate their forwarding tables
   according to a set of instructions.

   OpenFlow is clearly not the "next big thing": there are many, many
   other candidate protocols that can be used for the same or even
   broader purposes (e.g., resource reservation purposes).  The
   forwarding of the configuration information can indeed rely upon a
   variety of protocols that include (but is not necessarily limited to)
   PCEP [RFC5440], NETCONF [RFC6241], COPS-PR [RFC3084], Routing Policy
   Specification Language (RPSL, [RFC2622]), etc.

   There is therefore no 1:1 relationship between OpenFlow and SDN.
   Rather, OpenFlow is one of the candidate protocols to convey specific
   configuration information towards devices.  As such, OpenFlow is one
   possible component of the global SDN toolkit.

3.6.  Non Goals

   There are inevitable trade-offs to be found between operating the
   current networking ecosystem and introducing some SDN techniques,
   possibly at the cost of introducing new technologies.  Operators do
   not have to choose between the two as both environments will have to
   coexist.

   In particular, the following considerations cannot justify the
   deployment of SDN techniques:

   o  Fully flexible software implementations, because the claimed
      flexibility will be limited by respective software and hardware
      limitations, anyway.



Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   o  Fully modular implementations are difficult to achieve (because of
      the implicit complexity) and may introduce extra effort for
      testing, validation and troubleshooting.
   o  Fully centralized control systems that are likely to raise some
      scalability issues.  Distributed protocols and their ability to
      react to some events (e.g., link failure) in a timely manner
      remains a cornerstone of scalable networks.  This means that SDN
      designs can rely upon a logical representation of centralized
      features (an abstraction layer that would support inter-PDP
      communications, for example).

4.  Discussion

4.1.  Implications Of Full Automation

   The path towards full automation is paved with numerous challenges
   and requirements, including:

   o  Make sure automation is well implemented so as to facilitate
      testing (including validation checks) and troubleshooting.

      *  This suggests the need for simulation tools that accurately
         assess the impact of introducing a high level of automation in
         the overall service delivery procedure, so as to avoid a
         typical "mad robot" syndrome whose consequences can be serious,
         from a control and QoS standpoints among others.
      *  This also suggests careful management of human expertise, so
         that network operators can use robust, flexible means to
         automate repetitive or error-prone tasks, and then build on
         automation or stringing together multiple actions to create
         increasingly complex tasks that require less human interaction
         (guidance, input) to complete.
   o  Simplify and foster service delivery, assurance and fulfillment,
      as well as network failure detection, diagnosis and root cause
      analysis, for the sake of cost optimization:

      *  Such cost optimization relates to improved service delivery
         times as well as optimized human expertise (see above) and
         global, technology-agnostic, service structuring and delivery
         procedures.  In particular, the ability to inject new functions
         in existing devices should not assume a replacement of the said
         devices, but rather allow smart investment capitalization.
      *  This can be achieved thanks to automation, possibly based upon
         a logically centralized view of the network infrastructure (or
         a portion thereof), yielding the need for highly automated
         topology, device and capabilities discovery means as well as
         operational procedures.




Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


      *  The main intelligence resides in the PDP, which suggests that
         an important part of the SDN-related development effort should
         focus on a detailed specification of the PDP function,
         including algorithms and behavioral state machineries, based
         upon a complete set of standardized data and information
         models.
      *  These information models and data need to be carefully
         structured for the sakes of efficiency and flexibility.  This
         probably suggests a set of simplified pseudoblocks that can be
         assembled as per the nature of the service to be delivered.
   o  Need for abstraction layers: clear interfaces between business
      actors, between layers, let alone cross-layer considerations, etc.

      *  For the sake of various service structuring and packaging.
      *  Need for IP connectivity service exposure to customers, peers,
         applications, content/service providers, etc. (e.g.,
         [I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile]).
      *  Need for solutions that accommodate IP connectivity service
         requirements with network engineering objectives.
      *  Need for dynamically-adaptive decision-making processes, which
         can properly operate according to a set of input data and
         metrics, such as current resource usage and demand, traffic
         forecasts and matrices, etc., all for the sake of highly
         responsive dynamic resource allocation and policy enforcement
         schemes.
   o  Better accommodate technologically heterogeneous networking
      environments:

      *  Need for vendor-independent configuration procedures, based
         upon the enforcement of vendor-agnostic generic policies
         instead of vendor-specific languages.
      *  Need for tools to aid manageability and orchestrate resources.
      *  Avoid proxies and privilege direct interaction with engines
         (e.g., routing, forwarding).

4.2.  The Intelligence Resides In The PDP

   The proposed SDN definition in Section 2.3 assumes an intelligence
   that may reside in the control or the management planes (or both).
   This intelligence is typically represented by a Policy Decision Point
   (PDP), which is one of the key functional components of the Policy-
   Based Management framework [RFC2753].

   SDN networking therefore relies upon PDP functions that are capable
   of processing various input data (traffic forecasts, outcomes of
   negotiation between customers and service providers, resource status
   (as depicted in appropriate information models instantiated in the
   PIB, etc.) to make appropriate decisions.



Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   The design and the operation of such PDP-based intelligence in a
   scalable manner remains of the major areas that needs to be
   investigated.

   To avoid centralized design schemes, inter-PDP communication is
   likely to be required, and corresponding issues and solutions should
   be considered.  Several PDP instances may thus be activated in a
   given domain.  Because each of these PDP instances may be responsible
   for making decisions about the enforcement of a specific policy
   (e.g., one PDP for QoS policy enforcement purposes, another one for
   security policy enforcement purposes, etc.), an inter-PDP
   communication scheme is required for the sake of global PDP
   coordination and correlation.

   Inter-domain PDP exchanges may also be needed for specific usages.
   Examples of such exchanges are: (1) During the network attachment
   phase of a node to a visited network, the PDP operated by the visited
   network can contact the home PDP to retrieve the policies to be
   enforced for that node. (2) Various PDPs can collaborate together in
   order to compute inter-domain paths which satisfy a set of traffic
   performance guarantees.

4.3.  Simplicity And Adaptability Vs.  Complexity

   The meta functional domains introduced in Section 2.4 assume the
   introduction of a high level of automation, from service negotiation
   to delivery and operation.  Automation is the key to simplicity, but
   must not be seen as a magic button that would be hit by a network
   administrator whenever a customer request has to be processed or
   additional resources need to be allocated.

   The need for simplicity and adaptability thanks to automated
   procedures generally assumes some complexity that lies beneath
   automation.

4.4.  Performance And Scalability

   The combination of flexibility with software inevitably raises
   performance and scalability issues as a function of the number and
   the nature of the services to be delivered and their associated
   dynamics.










Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   For example: while the deployment of a network solely composed of
   OpenFlow switches within a data center environment is unlikely to
   raise FIB scalability issues given the current state-of-the-art, data
   center networking that relies upon complex, possibly IP-based, QoS-
   inferred, interconnect design schemes meant to dynamically manage the
   mobility of Virtual Machines between sites is certainly of another
   scale.

   The claimed flexibility of SDN networking in the latter context will
   have to be carefully investigated by operators.

4.5.  Risk Assessement

   Various risks are to be assessed such as:

   o  Evaluating the risk of depending on a controller technology rather
      than a device technology.
   o  Evaluating the risk of operating frozen architectures because of
      potential interoperability issues between a controller and a
      controlled device.
   o  Assessing whether SDN-labeled solutions are likely to obsolete
      existing technologies because of hardware limitations.
   o  Etc.

4.6.  On Security

   Security has to be a first-class part of any SDN design, thus giving
   both network and applications people the control to ensure that the
   other has access to the info and controls that they need (but no
   more), and to ensure that they are properly safeguarded against
   taking actions that will adversely affect the network or application
   as a whole [I-D.hartman-sdnsec-requirements].

   Likewise, PEP-PDP interactions suggest the need to make sure that (1)
   A PDP is entitled to solicit PEPs so that they can apply the
   decisions made by the said PDP, (2) A PEP is entitled to solicit a
   PDP for whatever reason (request for additional configuration
   information, notification about the results of a set of configuration
   tasks, etc.), and (3) communication between PDPs within a domain or
   between domains is properly secured (e.g., make sure a pair of PDPs
   are entitled to communicate with each other, make sure the
   confidentiality of the information exchanged between two PDPs can be
   preserved, etc.).

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any action from IANA.




Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not define any protocol nor architecture.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to W. George, J. Halpern, D. King, J. H. Salim, and T.
   Tsou for their comments.

   Special thanks to P. Georgatos for the interesting discussion;
   particularly the discussion on SDNi (SDN Interconnection).

8.  Informative References

   [I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile]
              Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and N. Wang, "IP/MPLS
              Connectivity Provisioning Profile", draft-boucadair-
              connectivity-provisioning-profile-02 (work in progress),
              September 2012.

   [I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-protocol]
              Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Connectivity Provisioning
              Negotiation Protocol (CPNP)", draft-boucadair-
              connectivity-provisioning-protocol-00 (work in progress),
              May 2013.

   [I-D.boucadair-network-automation-requirements]
              Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Requirements for
              Automated (Configuration) Management", draft-boucadair-
              network-automation-requirements-00 (work in progress),
              December 2012.

   [I-D.hartman-sdnsec-requirements]
              Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Security Requirements in the
              Software Defined Networking Model", draft-hartman-sdnsec-
              requirements-01 (work in progress), April 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
              Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
              Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
              Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-03
              (work in progress), May 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-sla-exchange]
              Shah, S., Patel, K., Bajaj, S., Tomotaki, L., and M.
              Boucadair, "Inter-domain SLA Exchange", draft-ietf-idr-
              sla-exchange-00 (work in progress), January 2013.




Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   [RFC1383]  Huitema, C., "An Experiment in DNS Based IP Routing", RFC
              1383, December 1992.

   [RFC2622]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
              Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
              June 1999.

   [RFC2753]  Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., and R. Guerin, "A Framework
              for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January
              2000.

   [RFC3084]  Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S., McCloghrie,
              K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar, R., and A.
              Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)", RFC
              3084, March 2001.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
              2009.

   [RFC5810]  Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
              W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
              Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
              Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.

   [RFC5812]  Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
              Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model", RFC
              5812, March 2010.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
              Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC
              6241, June 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes  35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com






Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                   On SDN                        June 2013


   Christian Jacquenet
   France Telecom
   Rennes
   France

   Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com













































Boucadair & Jacquenet   Expires December 07, 2013              [Page 16]