[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-jiang-nmrg-an-gap-analysis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 7576

Network Management Research Group                               S. Jiang
Internet-Draft                              Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Informational                              B. Carpenter
Expires: March 2, 2015                                 Univ. of Auckland
                                                            M. Behringer
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                         August 29, 2014


                 Gap Analysis for Autonomic Networking
                   draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-01

Abstract

   This document summarises a problem statement for an IP-based
   autonomic network that is mainly based on distributed network
   devices.  The document reviews the history and current status of
   autonomic aspects of IP networks.  It then reviews the current
   network management style, which is still heavily depending on human
   administrators.  Finally the document describes the general gaps
   between the ideal autonomic network concept and the current network
   abilities.

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 March 2, 2015.

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



Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Current Status of Autonomic Aspects of IP Networks  . . . . .   3
     3.1.  IP Address Management and DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Configuration of Default Router . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Hostname Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.5.  User Authentication and Accounting  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.6.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.7.  Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Current Non-Autonomic Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Network Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Network Maintenance & Management  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Troubleshooting and Recovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Approach toward Autonomy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  More Coordination among Devices or Network Partitions . .   9
     5.2.  Reusable Common Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  Less Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.4.  Forecasting and Dry Runs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.5.  Benefit from Knowledge  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The general goals and relevant definitions for autonomic networking
   are discussed in [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions].  In
   summary, the fundamental goal of an autonomic network is self-
   management, including self-configuration, self-optimization, self-
   healing and self-protection.  Whereas interior gateway routing
   protocols such as OSPF and IS-IS largely exhibit these properties,
   most other aspects of networking require top-down configuration often
   involving human administrators and a considerable degree of
   centralisation.  In essence Autonomous Networking is putting all
   network configurations onto the same footing as routing, limiting



Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   manual or database-driven configuration to an essential minimum.  It
   should be noted that this is highly unlikely to eliminate the need
   for human administrators, because many of their essential tasks will
   remain.  The idea is to eliminate tedious and error-prone tasks, for
   example manual calculations, cross-checking between two different
   configuration files, or tedious data entry.  Higher level operational
   tasks, and trouble-shooting, will remain to be done in any case.

2.  Terminology

   The terminology defined in
   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] is used in this
   document.  Additional terms include:

   o  Automatic: A process that occurs without human intervention, with
      step-by-step execution of rules.  However it relies on humans
      defining the sequence of rules, so is not Autonomic in the full
      sense.  For example, a start-up script is automatic but not
      autonomic.

3.  Current Status of Autonomic Aspects of IP Networks

   This section discusses the history and current status of autonomy in
   various aspects of network configuration, in order to establish a
   baseline for the gap analysis.  In one particular area, routing
   protocols, autonomic information exchange and decision is a well
   established mechanism.  The question is how to extend autonomy to
   cover all kinds of network management objectives.

3.1.  IP Address Management and DNS

   Originally there was no alternative to completely manual and static
   management of IP addresses.  Once a site had received an IPv4 address
   assignment (usually a Class C /24 or Class B /16, and rarely a Class
   A /8) it was a matter of paper-and-pencil design of the subnet plan
   (if relevant) and the addressing plan itself.  Subnet prefixes were
   manually configured into routers, and /32 addresses were assigned
   administratively to individual host computers, and configured
   manually by system administrators.  Records were typically kept in a
   plain text file or a simple spreadsheet.

   Clearly this method was clumsy and error-prone as soon as a site had
   more than a few tens of hosts, but it had to be used until DHCP
   [RFC2131] became a viable solution during the second half of the
   1990s.  DHCP made it possible to avoid manual configuration of
   individual hosts (except, in many deployments, for a small number of
   servers configured with static addresses).




Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   In terms of management, it is difficult to separate IP address
   management from DNS management.  At roughly the same time as DHCP
   came into widespread use, it became very laborious to manually
   maintain DNS source files in step with IP address assignments.
   Because of reverse DNS lookup, it also became necessary to synthesise
   DNS names even for hosts that only played the role of clients.
   Therefore, it became necessary to synchronise DHCP server tables with
   forward and reverse DNS.  For this reason, Internet Protocol address
   management tools emerged.  These are, however, a centralised and far
   from autonomic type of solution.

   A related issue is prefix delegation, especially in IPv6 when more
   than one prefix may be delegated to the same physical subnet.  DHCPv6
   Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] is a useful solution, but how this topic
   is to be handled in home networks is still an open question.  Still
   further away is automated assignment and delegation of IPv4 subnet
   prefixes.

   Another complication is the possibility of Dynamic DNS Update
   [RFC2136].  With appropriate security, this is an autonomic approach,
   where no human intervention is required to create the DNS records for
   a host.  Also, there are coexistence issues with a traditional DNS
   setup.

3.2.  Routing

   Since a very early stage, it has been a goal that Internet routing
   should be self-healing when there is a failure of some kind in the
   routing system (i.e. a link or a router goes wrong).  Also, the
   problem of finding optimal routes through a network was identified
   many years ago as a problem in mathematical graph theory, for which
   well known algorithms were discovered (the Dijkstra and Bellman-Ford
   algorithms).  Thus routing protocols became largely autonomic in the
   1980s, as soon as the network was big enough for manual configuration
   of routing tables to become difficult.

   IGP routers do need some initial configuration data to start up the
   autonomic routing protocol.  Also, BGP-4 routers need static
   configuration of routing policy data.  So far, this policy
   configuration has not been made autonomic at all.

3.3.  Configuration of Default Router

   Originally this was a manual operation.  Since the deployment of
   DHCP, this has been automatic as far as most IPv4 end systems are
   concerned, but the DHCP server must be appropriately configured.  In
   simple environments such as a home network, the DHCP server resides
   in the same box as the default router, so this configuration is also



Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   automatic.  In more complex environments, where an independent DHCP
   server or a local DHCP relay is used, configuration is more complex
   and not automatic.

   In IPv6 networks, the default router is provided by Router
   Advertisement messages [RFC4861] from the router itself, and all IPv6
   hosts make use of it.  The router may also provide more complex Route
   Information Options.  The process is automatic as far as all IPv6 end
   systems are concerned, and DHCPv6 is not involved.  However, there
   are still open issues when more than one prefix is in use on a subnet
   and more than one first-hop router may be available as a result.

3.4.  Hostname Lookup

   Originally host names were looked up in a static table, often
   referred to as /etc/hosts from its traditional file path in Unix
   systems.  When the DNS was deployed during the 1980s, all hosts
   needed DNS resolver code, and needed to be configured with the IP
   addresses (not the names) of suitable DNS servers.  Like the default
   router, these were originally manually configured.  Today, they are
   provided automatically via DHCP or DHCPv6 [RFC3315].  For IPv6 end
   systems, there is also a way for them to be provided automatically
   via a Router Advertisement option.  However, the DHCP or DHCPv6
   server, or the IPv6 router, need to be configured with the
   appropriate DNS server addresses.

3.5.  User Authentication and Accounting

   Originally, user authentication and accounting are mainly based on
   the physical connectivities.  Network operators charged based on the
   set up of dedicated physical links with users.  Autonomic user
   authentication are introduced by Point-to-Point Protocol [RFC1661],
   [RFC1994] and RADIUS protocol [RFC2865], [RFC2866] in early 1990s.
   As long as a user complete online authentication through RADIUS
   protocol, the accounting for that user starts on AAA server
   autonomically.  This mechanism enables charging business model based
   on the usage of users, either traffic based or time based.  However,
   the management for user authentication information remains manual by
   network administrators.

3.6.  Security

   Security has many aspects that need configuration and are therefore
   candidates to become autonomic.  On the other hand, it is essential
   that a network's central policy should be applied strictly for all
   security configurations.  As a result security has largely been based
   on centrally imposed configurations.




Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   Many aspects of security depend on policy, for example firewall
   policies.  Policies are by definition human made and will therefore
   also persist in an autonomic environment.  However, policies are
   becoming more high-level, abstracting for example addressing, and
   focusing on the user or application.  The methods to manage,
   distribute and apply policy, and to monitor compliance and violations
   could be autonomic.

   Today, many security mechanisms show some autonomic properties.  For
   example user authentication via 802.1x allows automatic mapping of
   users after authentication into logical contexts (typically VLANs).
   While today configuration is still very important, the overall
   mechanism displays signs of self-adaption to changing situations.

   BGP Flowspec [RFC5575] allows a partially autonomic threat defense
   mechanism, where threats are identified, the flow information is
   automatically distributed, and counter-actions can be applied.  Today
   typically a human operator is still in the loop to check correctness,
   but over time such mechanisms can become more autonomic.

   Negotiation capabilities, present in many security protocols, also
   display simple autonomic behaviours.  In this case a security policy
   about algorithm strength can be configured into servers but will
   propagate automatically to clients.  A proposal has been made
   recently for automatic bootstrapping of trust in a network
   [I-D.behringer-default-secure].  Solutions for opportunistic
   encryption have been defined [RFC4322],
   [I-D.farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt], but these do not adhere to
   a central policy.

3.7.  Miscellaneous

   There are innumerable other properties of network devices and end
   systems that today need to be configured either manually or using a
   management protocol such as SNMP [RFC1157] or NETCONF [RFC6241].  In
   a truly autonomic network, all of these would need to either have
   satisfactory default values or be configured automatically.  Some
   examples are parameters for tunnels of various kinds, flows (in an
   SDN context), quality of service, service function chaining, energy
   management, system identification, NTP configuration etc.  Even one
   undefined parameter would be sufficient to prevent fully autonomic
   operation.

4.  Current Non-Autonomic Behaviors

   In the current networks, many operations are still heavily depending
   on human intelligence and decision, or on centralised top-down
   network management systems.  These operations are the targets of



Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   Autonomic Network technologies.  The ultimate goal of Autonomic
   Network is to replace tedious human operations by autonomic
   functions, so that the networks can independently run without having
   to ask human support for routine details, while it remains possible
   to restore human intervention when unavoidable.  Of course, there
   would still be the absolute minimum of human input required,
   particularly during the network establishment stage, and during
   difficult trouble-shooting.

   This section analyzes the existing human and central dependencies in
   the current networks.

4.1.  Network Establishment

   Network establishment requires network operators to analyze the
   requirements of the new network, design a network architecture and
   topology, decide device locations and capacities, set up hardware,
   design network services, choose and enable required protocols,
   configure each device and each protocol, set up user authentication
   and accounting policies and databases, design and deploy security
   mechanisms, etc.

   Overall, these jobs are quite complex work that cannot become fully
   autonomic in the forseeable future.  However, part of these jobs may
   be able to become autonomic, such as device and protocol
   configurations and database population.  The initial network
   management policies/behaviors may also be transplanted from other
   networks and automatically localized.

4.2.  Network Maintenance & Management

   The network maintenance and management are very different for ISP
   networks and enterprise networks.  ISP networks have to change much
   more frequently than enterprise networks, given the fact that ISP
   networks have to serve a large number of customers who have very
   diversified requirements.  The current rigid model is that network
   administrators design a limited number of services for customers to
   order.  New requirements of network services may not be able to be
   met quickly by human management.  Given a real-time request, the
   response must be autonomic, in order to be flexible and quickly
   deployed.  However, behind the interface, describing abstracted
   network information and user authorization management may have to
   depend on human intelligence from network administrators in the
   forseeable future.  User identification integration/consolidation
   among networks or network services is another challenge for autonomic
   network access.  Currently, the end users have to manually manage
   their user accounts and authentication information when they switch
   among networks or network services.



Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   Classical network maintenance and management mainly manages the
   configuration of network devices.  Tools have developed to enable
   remote management and make the management easier.  However, the
   decision of each configuration depends either on human intelligence
   or rigid templates.  This is the source of most network configuration
   errors.  It is also the barrier to increase the utility of network
   resources because the human management cannot respond quickly enough
   to network events, such as traffic bursts, etc.  For example,
   currently, a light load is normally assumed in network design because
   there is no mechanism to properly handle a sudden traffic flood.  It
   is actually normal to avoid network crashes caused by traffic
   overload by wasting a huge amount of resources.

   Autonomic decision processes of configuration would enable dynamic
   management of network resources (by managing resource relevant
   configuration).  Self-adapting network configuration would adjust the
   network into the best possible situation, which also prevents
   configuration errors from having lasting impact.

4.3.  Troubleshooting and Recovery

   Current networks suffer difficulties in locating the cause of network
   failures.  Although network devices may issue many warnings while
   running, most of them are not sufficiently precise to be identified
   as errors.  Some of them are early warnings that would not develop
   into real errors.  Others are in effect random noise.  During a major
   failure, many different devices will issue multiple warnings within a
   short time, causing overload for the NMS and the operators.  However,
   for many scenarios, human experience is still vital to identify real
   issues and locate them.  This situation may be improved by
   automatically associating warnings from multiple network devices
   together.  Also, introducing automated learning techniques (comparing
   current warnings with historical relationships between warnings and
   actual faults) could increase the possibility and success rate of
   autonomic network diagnoses and troubleshooting.

   Depending on the network errors, some of them may always require
   human interventions, particularly for hardware failures.  However,
   autonomic network management behavior may help to reduce the impact
   of errors, for example by switching traffic flows around.  Today this
   is usually manual (except for classical routing updates).  Fixing
   software failures and configuration errors currently depends on
   humans, and may even involve rolling back software versions and
   rebooting hardware.  Such problems could be autonomically corrected
   if there were diagnostics and recovery functions defined in advance
   for them.  This would fulfill the concept of self-healing.





Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   Another possible autonomic function is predicting device failures or
   overloads before they occur.  A device could predict its own failure
   and warn its neighbors; or a device could predict its neighbor's
   failure.  In either case, an autonomic network could respond as if
   the failure had already occurred by routing round the problem and
   reporting the failure, with no disturbance to users.  The criteria
   for predicting failure could be temperature, battery status, bit
   error rates, etc.  The criteria for predicting overload could be
   increasing load factor, latency, jitter, congestion loss, etc.

5.  Approach toward Autonomy

   The task of autonomic networking is to build up individual autonomic
   decision processes that could properly combine to respond to every
   type of network event.  This section (when complete) will outline
   what needs to be developed.

5.1.  More Coordination among Devices or Network Partitions

   Events in networks are normally not independent.  They are associated
   with each other.  But most of current response functions are based on
   independent processes.  The network events that may naturally happen
   distributed should be associated in the autonomic processes.

   In order to make right or good decisions autonomically, the network
   devices need to know more information than just reachability
   (routing) information from the relevant or neighbor devices.  There
   are dependencies between such information and configurations.
   Currently, most of these configurations currently require manual
   coordination by network administrators.

   There are therefore increased requirements for horizontal information
   exchanging in the networks.  Particularly, negotiations among network
   devices are needed for autonomic decision.
   [I-D.jiang-config-negotiation-ps] analyzes such requirements.
   Although there are many existing protocols with negotiation ability,
   each of them only serves a specific and narrow purpose.
   [I-D.jiang-config-negotiation-protocol] is one of the attempts to
   create a generic negotiation platform, which would support different
   negotiation objectives.

5.2.  Reusable Common Components

   Elements of autonomic functions already exist today, within many
   different protocols.  However, all such functions have their own
   discovery, transport, messaging and security mechanisms as well as
   non-autonomic management interfaces.  Each protocol has its own
   version of the above-mentioned functions to serve specific and narrow



Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   purposes.  It is often difficult to extend an existing protocol to
   serve different purposes.  So, it is desirable to develop a set of
   reusable common components for Autonomic Networks.  These components
   should be:

   o  Able to manage any type of information and information flows

   o  Able to discover counterparts for various autonomic service agents
      (or autonomic functions)

   o  Able to support closed-loop operations when needed to provide
      self-managing functions involving more than one device

   o  Little dependency: independent from the specific autonomic service
      agents (or autonomic functions)

   o  Reusable by other autonomic functions

5.3.  Less Configuration

   Most existing protocols have been defined to be as flexible as
   possible.  Consequently, these protocols need many initial
   configurations to start operationse.  There are many choices and
   options that are unnecessary in any particular case.  A large portion
   of these configurations target corner cases.  Furthermore, in many
   protocols that already exist for years, some design considerations
   are no longer valid since the hardware technologies have made
   dramatic progress in recent years.  There is much scope for
   simplifying the protocols and the operation of protocols.

   From another perspective, the deep reason why human decisions are
   often needed mainly resulst from the lack of information.  When a
   device can collect enough information horizontally from other
   devices, it should be able to decide many parameters by itself,
   instead of receiving them from top-down configuration.

   It is desired that the top-down management is reduced in the
   Autonomic Networking.  Ideally, only the abstract intent is needed
   from the human administrators.  The detailed parameters should be
   decided by distributed Autonomic Nodes themselves, either from
   historic knowledge, analytics of current conditions, closed logical
   decision loops, or a combination of all.

5.4.  Forecasting and Dry Runs

   In a conventional network, there is no mechanism for trying something
   out.  That means that configuration changes have to be designed in
   the abstract and their probable effects have to be estimated



Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   theoretically.  The only alternative to this would be to test them on
   a complete and realistic network simulator, which is unlikely to be
   possible for a network of any size.  In any case, there is a risk
   that applying the changes to the running network will cause a failure
   of some kind.  An autonomic network could fill this gap by supporting
   a "dry run" mode in which a configuration change could be tested out
   in the control plane without actually affecting the data plane.  If
   the results are satisfactory, the change could be made live; if there
   is a problem, the change could be rolled back with no effect on
   users.

5.5.  Benefit from Knowledge

   The more knowledge we have, the more intelligent we are.  It is the
   same for networks and network management.  It is when one component
   in the network lacks knowledge that affects what it should do, and
   another component has that knowledge, that we usually rely on a human
   operator or a centralised management tool to convey the knowledge.

   Up to now, most available network knowledge is only the current
   network status, either inside a device or relevant data from other
   devices.

   However, historic knowledge is very helpful to make correct
   decisions, in particular to reduce network oscillation or to manage
   network resources over time.  Transplantable knowledge from other
   networks can be helpful to initially set up a new network or new
   network devices.  Knowledge of relationships between network events
   and network configuration may help a network to decide the best
   parameters according to real performance feedback.

   In addition to such historic knowledge, powerful data analytics of
   current network conditions may also be a valuable source of knowledge
   that can be exploited directly by autonomic nodes.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document is focused on what is missing to allow autonomic
   network configuration, including of course security settings.
   Therefore, it does not itself create any new security issues.  It is
   worth underlining that autonomic technology must be designed with
   strong security properties from the start, since a network with
   vulnerable autonomic functions would be at great risk.








Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable comments made by
   participants in the IRTF Network Management Research Group and
   others.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].

9.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-01: RG comments added and more
   content in "Approach toward Autonomy" section, 2014-08-30.

   draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-00: RG comments added, 2014-04-02.

   draft-jiang-nmrg-an-gap-analysis-00: original version, 2014-02-14.

10.  Informative References

   [I-D.behringer-default-secure]
              Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., and S. Bjarnason, "Making The
              Internet Secure By Default", draft-behringer-default-
              secure-00 (work in progress), January 2014.

   [I-D.farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt]
              Farrel, A. and S. Farrell, "Opportunistic Encryption in
              MPLS Networks", draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-
              encrypt-02 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions]
              Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
              Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
              Networking - Definitions and Design Goals", draft-irtf-
              nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-03 (work in progress),
              August 2014.

   [I-D.jiang-config-negotiation-protocol]
              Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and B. Liu, "Configuration
              Discovery and Negotiation Protocol for Network Devices",
              draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-02 (work in
              progress), June 2014.






Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   [I-D.jiang-config-negotiation-ps]
              Jiang, S., Yin, Y., and B. Carpenter, "Network
              Configuration Negotiation Problem Statement and
              Requirements", draft-jiang-config-negotiation-ps-03 (work
              in progress), May 2014.

   [RFC1157]  Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
              "Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC
              1157, May 1990.

   [RFC1661]  Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
              RFC 1661, July 1994.

   [RFC1994]  Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication
              Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC
              2131, March 1997.

   [RFC2136]  Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
              "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
              RFC 2136, April 1997.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC
              2865, June 2000.

   [RFC2866]  Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              December 2003.

   [RFC4322]  Richardson, M. and D. Redelmeier, "Opportunistic
              Encryption using the Internet Key Exchange (IKE)", RFC
              4322, December 2005.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.




Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Autonomic Networking Gap Analysis        August 2014


   [RFC5575]  Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
              and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
              Rules", RFC 5575, August 2009.

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

Authors' Addresses

   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095
   P.R. China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com


   Brian Carpenter
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland  1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   Michael H. Behringer
   Cisco Systems
   Building D, 45 Allee des Ormes
   Mougins 06250
   France

   Email: mbehring@cisco.com















Jiang, et al.             Expires March 2, 2015                [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/