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

Versions: (draft-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-and-goals) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 7575

Internet Research Task Force                                M. Behringer
Internet-Draft                                               M. Pritikin
Intended status: Informational                              S. Bjarnason
Expires: January 29, 2015                                       A. Clemm
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            B. Carpenter
                                                       Univ. of Auckland
                                                                S. Jiang
                                            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                            L. Ciavaglia
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                           July 28, 2014


          Autonomic Networking - Definitions and Design Goals
          draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-02.txt

Abstract

   Autonomic systems were first described in 2001.  The fundamental goal
   is self-management, including self-configuration, self-optimization,
   self-healing and self-protection.

   This document applies the concepts of autonomic systems to a network,
   and describes the definitions and design goals of Autonomic
   Networking.  The high-level goal for an autonomic function is to have
   minimal dependencies on human administrators or centralized
   management systems.  This usually implies distribution across network
   elements.

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 January 29, 2015.





Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 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
   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 to Autonomic Networking  . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Design Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Self-Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Co-Existence with Traditional Management  . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  By Default Secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Decentralisation and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.5.  Simplification of Autonomic Node Northbound Interfaces  .   7
     3.6.  Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.7.  Autonomic Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.8.  Common Autonomic Networking Infrastructure  . . . . . . .   8
     3.9.  Independence of Function and Layer  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.10. Full Life Cycle Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Non Design Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Eliminate human operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Eliminate emergency fixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Eliminate management control and central policy . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Eliminate existing configuration tools  . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5.  Eliminate existing network management systems . . . . . .  10
   5.  An Autonomic Reference Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction to Autonomic Networking

   Autonomic systems were first described in a manifesto by IBM in 2001
   [Kephart].  The fundamental concept involves eliminating external
   systems from a system's control loops and closing of control loops
   within the autonomic system itself, with the goal of providing the



Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   autonomic system with self-management capabilities, including self-
   configuration, self-optimization, self-healing and self-protection.

   IP networking was initially designed with similar properties in mind.
   An IP network should be distributed and redundant to withstand
   outages in any part of the network.  A routing protocol such as OSPF
   or ISIS exhibits properties of self-management, and can thus be
   considered autonomic in the definition of this document.

   However, as IP networking evolved, the ever increasing intelligence
   of network elements was often not put into protocols to follow this
   paradigm, but into configuration.  This configuration made network
   elements highly dependent on some process that manages them, either a
   human, or a network management system.

   Autonomic Networking aims at putting the intelligence of today's
   operations back into algorithms at the node level, to minimize
   dependency on human administrators and central management systems.
   Some information an autonomic function requires however cannot be
   discovered; where input from some central intelligence is required,
   it is provided in a highly abstract, network wide form.

   Autonomic Computing in general and Autonomic Networking in particular
   have been the subject of academic study for many years.  There is a
   large literature, including several useful overview papers (e.g.,
   [Jennings], [Movahedi]).  In the present document we focus on
   concepts and definitions that seem sufficiently mature to become the
   basis for interoperable specifications in the near future.  In
   particular, such specifications will need to co-exist with
   traditional methods of network configuration and management, rather
   than realising an exclusively autonomic system with all the
   properties that would require.

   There is an important difference between "automatic" and "autonomic".
   "Automatic" refers to a pre-defined, linear process, such as a
   script.  "Autonomic" is used in the context of self-management.  It
   includes feedback loops between elements as well as northbound.

   This document provides the definitions and gesign goals for Autonomic
   Networking.

2.  Definitions

   Autonomic: Self-managing (self-configuring, self-protecting, self-
   healing, self-optimizing); however, allowing high-level guidance by a
   central entity, through intent.





Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   Intent: An abstract, high level policy used to operate the network
   autonomically.  Its scope is an autonomic domain, such as an
   enterprise network.  It does not contain configuration or information
   for a specific node (see Section 3.2 on how intent co-exists with
   alternative management paradigms).  It may contain information
   pertaining to nodes with a specific role.

   Autonomic Domain: A collection of autonomic nodes that instantiate
   the same intent.

   Autonomic Function: A feature or function which requires no
   configuration, and can derive all required information either through
   self-knowledge, discovery or through intent.

   Autonomic Service Agent: An agent implemented on an autonomic node
   which implements an autonomic function, either in part (in the case
   of a distributed function) or whole.

   Autonomic Node: A node which employs autonomic functions.  It may
   operate on any layer of the networking stack.  Examples are routers,
   switches, personal computers, call managers, etc.

   Fully Autonomic Node: A node which employs exclusively autonomic
   functions.  It requires (!) no configuration.  Note that
   configuration can be used to override an autonomic function.  See
   Section 3.2 for more details.

   Autonomic Network: A network containing autonomic nodes.

   Fully Autonomic Network: A network consisting of exclusively fully
   autonomic nodes.

3.  Design Goals

   This section explains the high level goals of Autonomic Networking,
   independent of any specific solutions.

3.1.  Self-Management

   The original design goals of autonomic systems as described in
   [Kephart] also apply to Autonomic Networks.  The over-arching goal is
   self-management, which is comprised of several self-* properties.
   The most commonly cited are:

   o  Self-configuration: Functions do not require to be configured, but
      they configure themselves, based on self-knowledge, discovery, and
      intent.  Discovery is the default way for an autonomic function to
      receive the information it needs to operate.



Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   o  Self-healing: Autonomic functions adapt on their own to changes in
      the environment, and heal problems automatically.

   o  Self-optimising: Autonomic functions automatically determine ways
      to optimise their behaviour.

   o  Self-protection: Autonomic functions automatically secure
      themselves against potential attacks.

   Almost any network can be described as "self-managing", as long as
   the definition of "self" is large enough.  For example, a well-
   defined SDN system, including the controller elements, can be
   described over all as "autonomic", if the controller provides an
   interface to the administrator which has the same properties as
   mentioned above (high level, network-wide, etc).

   For the work in the IETF and IRTF we define the "self" properties on
   the node level.  It is the design goal to make functions on network
   nodes self- managing, in other words, minimally dependent on
   management systems or controllers, as well as human operators.  Self-
   managing functions on a node might need to exchange information with
   other nodes in order to achieve the required goals.

3.2.  Co-Existence with Traditional Management

   For the forseeable future, fully autonomic nodes and network will be
   the exception; autonomic behaviour will initially be defined function
   by function.  Therefore, co-existence with other network management
   paradigms has to be considered.  Examples are management by command
   line, SNMP, SDN (with related APIs), netconf, etc.

   Conflict resolution between autonomic default behaviour and intent on
   one side, and other methods on the other is therefore required.
   Generally, autonomic mechanisms define a network wide behaviour,
   whereas the alternative methods are typically on a node by node
   basis.  Node based management concepts take a higher priority over
   autonomic methods.  This is in line with current examples of
   autonomic functions, for example routing: A (statically configured)
   route has priority over the routing algorithm.  In short:

   o  lowest priority: autonomic default behaviour

   o  medium priority: autonomic intent

   o  highest priority: node specific network management concepts, such
      as command line, SNMP, SDN, netconf, etc.  (How these concepts are
      prioritised between themselves is outside scope of this document.




Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   The above priorisation essentially results in unlimited power of the
   human administrator, who can always over-rule autonomic behaviour.
   This is generally the expectation of network operators today, and
   remains therefore a design principle here.  In critical systems, such
   as atomic power plants, sometimes the opposite philosophy is used:
   The expectation is that a well defined algorithm is more trustworthy
   than a human operator, especially in rare exception cases.
   Networking generally does not follow this philosophy yet.  Warnings
   however should be issued if node specific overrides may conflict with
   autonomic behaviour.

   In other fields, autonomic mechanisms disengage automatically if
   certain conditions occur: The auto-pilot in a plane switches off if
   the plane is outside a pre-defined envelope of flight parameters.
   The assumption is that the algorithms only work correctly if the
   input values are in expected ranges.  Some opinions however suggest
   that exactly in exceptional conditions is the worst moment to switch
   of autonomic behaviour, since the pilots have no full understanding
   of the situation at this point, and may be under high levels of
   stress.  For this reason we suggest here to NOT generally disable
   autonomic functions if they encounter unexpected conditions, because
   it is expected that this adds another level of unpredictability in
   networks, when the situation may already be hard to understand.

3.3.  By Default Secure

   All autonomic interactions should be by default secure.  This
   requires that any member of an autonomic domain can assert its
   membership using a domain identity, for example a certificate issued
   by a domain certification authority.  This domain identity is used
   for nodes to learn about their neighbouring nodes, to determine the
   boundaries of the domain, and to cryptographically secure
   interactions within the domain.  Nodes from different domains can
   also mutually verify their identity and secure interactions as long
   as they have a common trust anchor.

   A strong, cryptographically verifiable domain identity is a
   fundamental cornerstone in autonomic networking.  It can be leveraged
   to secure all communications, and allows thus automatic security
   without traditional configuration, for example pre-shared keys.

   Autonomic functions must be able to adapt their behaviour depending
   on the domain of the node they are interacting with.








Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


3.4.  Decentralisation and Distribution

   The goal of Autonomic Networking is to minimise dependencies on
   central elements; therefore, de-centralisation and distribution are
   fundamental to the concept.  If a problem can be solved in a
   distributed manner, it should not be centralised.

   In certain cases it is today operationally preferable to keep a
   central repository of information, for example a user database on a
   AAA server.  An autonomic network must also be able to use such
   central systems, in order to be deployable.  However, it is possible
   to distribute such databases as well, and such efforts should be at
   least considered.

3.5.  Simplification of Autonomic Node Northbound Interfaces

   Even in a decentralised solution, certain information flows with
   central entities are required.  Examples are the definition of intent
   or high level service definitions, as well as network status requests
   and aggregated reporting.

   Therefore, also nodes in an autonomic network require a northbound
   interface.  However, the design goal is to maintain this interface as
   simple and high level as possible.

3.6.  Abstraction

   An administrator or autonomic management system interacts with an
   autonomic network on a high level of abstraction.  Intent is defined
   at a level of abstraction that is much higher than that of typical
   configuration parameters, for example, "optimize my network for
   energy efficiency".  Intent must not be used to convey low-level
   commands or concepts, since those are on a different abstraction
   level.  The administrator should not even be exposed to the version
   of the IP protocol running in the network.

   Also on the reporting and feedback side an autonomic network
   abstracts information and provides high-level messages such as "the
   link between node X and Y is down".

3.7.  Autonomic Reporting

   An autonomic network, while minimizing the need for user
   intervention, still needs to provide users with visibility like in
   traditional networks.  However, in an autonomic network reporting
   should happen on a network wide basis.  Information about the network
   should be collected and aggregated by the network itself, presented
   in consolidated fashion to the administrator.



Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   The layers of abstraction that are provided via intent need to be
   supported for reporting functions as well, in order to give users an
   indication about the effectiveness of their intent.  For example, in
   order to assess how effective the network performs with regards to
   the intent "optimize my network for energy efficiency", the network
   should provide aggregate information about the number of ports that
   were able to be shut down while validating current service levels are
   on aggregate still met.

   Autonomic network events should concern the autonomic network as a
   whole, not individual systems in isolation.  For example, the same
   failure symptom should not be reported from every system that
   observes it, but only once for the autonomic network as a whole.
   Ultimately, the autonomic network should support exception based
   management, in which only events that truly require user attention
   are actually notified.  This requires capabilities that allow systems
   within the network to compare information and apply special
   algorithms to determine what should be reported.

3.8.  Common Autonomic Networking Infrastructure

   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis] points out that there are already a
   number of fully or partially autonomic functions available today.
   However, they are largely independent, and each has its own methods
   and protocols to communicate, discover, define and distribute policy,
   etc.

   The goal of the work on autonomic networking in the IETF is therefore
   not just to create autonomic functions, but to define a common
   infrastructure that autonomic functions can use.  This autonomic
   networking infrastructure may contain common control and management
   functions such as messaging, service discovery, negotiation, intent
   distribution, self-monitoring and diagnostics, etc.  A common
   approach to define and manage intent is also required.

   Refer to the reference model below: All the components around the
   "autonomic service agents" should be common components, such that the
   autonomic service agents do not have to replicate common tasks
   individually.

3.9.  Independence of Function and Layer

   Today's autonomic functions may reside on any layer in the networking
   stack.  For example, layer 2 switching today is already relatively
   autonomic in many environments; routing functions can be autonomic.
   "Autonomic" in the context of this framework is a property of a
   function on a node.  This node can be a switch, router, server, or
   call manager.  Autonomic functionality is independent of the function



Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   of a node.  Even application layer functionality such as unified
   communications can be autonomic.

   An Autonomic Network requires an overall control plane for autonomic
   nodes to communicate.  As in general IP networking, IP is the layer
   that binds all those elements together; autonomic functions in the
   context of this framework should therefore operate at the IP layer.
   This concerns neighbour discovery protocols and other autonomic
   control plane functions.

3.10.  Full Life Cycle Support

   An autonomic function does not depend on external input to operate;
   it needs to understand its current situation and surrounding, and
   operate according to its current state.  Therefore, an autonomic
   function must understand the full life cycle of the device it runs
   on, from first manufacturing testing through deployment, testing,
   troubleshooting, up to decommissioning.

   The state of the life-cycle of an autonomic node is reflected in a
   state model.  The behaviour of an autonomic function may be different
   for different deployment states.

4.  Non Design Goals

   This section identifies various items which are explicitly not design
   goals for autonomic networks, which are mentioned to avoid
   misunderstandings of the general intention.

4.1.  Eliminate human operators

   The problem targeted by autonomic networking is the error-prone and
   hard to scale model of individual configuration of network elements,
   traditionally by manual commands but today mainly by scripting and/or
   configuration management databases.  This does not, however, imply
   the elimination of skilled human operators, who will still be needed
   for oversight, policy management, diagnosis, reaction to help desk
   tickets, etc. etc.  The main impact on operators should be less
   tedious detailed work and more high-level work.  (They should become
   more like doctors than hospital orderlies.)

4.2.  Eliminate emergency fixes

   However good the autonomous mechanisms, sometimes there will be fault
   conditions etc. that they cannot deal with correctly.  At this point
   skilled operator interventions will be needed to correct or work
   around the problem.  Hopefully this can be done by high-level
   mechanisms (adapting the policy database in some way) but in some



Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   cases direct intervention at device level may be unavoidable.  This
   is obviously the case for hardware failures, even if the autonomic
   network has bypassed the fault for the time being.  Truck rolls will
   not be eliminated when faulty equipment needs to be replaced.
   However, this may be less urgent if the autonomic system
   automatically reconfigures to minimise the operational impact.

4.3.  Eliminate management control and central policy

   Senior management might fear loss of control of an autonomic network.
   In fact this is no more likely than with a traditional network; the
   emphasis on automatically applying general policy and security rules
   might even provide more management control.

4.4.  Eliminate existing configuration tools

   While autonomic networks will rarely need manual intervention, there
   is no expectation that traditional top-down configuration tools will
   vanish immediately.  Autonomic techniques will have to co-exist with
   them, and they will survive for as long as they are useful.
   Initially they will certainly play a part in confidence-building in
   the autonomic method, and they will be held in reserve for emergency
   use for a long time.

4.5.  Eliminate existing network management systems

   Existing monitoring and reporting systems will continue to be needed,
   and as just noted existing configuration mechanisms will not vanish.
   Therefore, it is to be expected that the existing NMS will be
   retained in parallel with autonomic mechanisms, and will be adapted
   as necessary.  Some aspects of the autonomic mechanism (e.g.
   aggregated reporting, exception reporting) should indeed be
   integrated with the existing NMS as far as possible.

5.  An Autonomic Reference Model

   An Autonomic Network consists of Autonomic Nodes.  Those nodes
   communicate with each other through an Autonomic Control Plane which
   provides a robust and secure communications overlay.  The Autonomic
   Control Plane is self-organizing and autonomic itself.

   An Autonomic Node contains various elements, such as autonomic
   service agents which immplement autonomic functions.  Figure 1 shows
   a reference model of an autonomic node.  The elements and their
   interaction are:

   o  Autonomic Service Agents, which implement the autonomic behaviour
      of a specific service or function.



Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   o  Self-knowledge: An autonomic node knows its own properties and
      capabilities

   o  Network Knowledge (Discovery): An autonomic service agent may
      require various discovery functions in the network, such as
      service discovery.

   o  Intent: Network wide high level policy.  Autonomic Service Agents
      use an intent interpretation engine to locally instantiate the
      global intent.  This may involve coordination with other Autonomic
      Nodes.

   o  Feedback Loops: Control elements outside the node may interact
      with autonomic nodes through feedback loops.

   o  An Autonomic User Agent, providing a front-end to external users
      (administrators and management applications) through which they
      can communicate intent, receive reports, and monitor the Autonomic
      Network.

   o  Autonomic Control Plane: Allows the node to communicate with other
      autonomic nodes.  Autonomic functions such as intent distribution,
      feedback loops, discovery mechanisms, etc, use the autonomic
      control plane.  The autonomic control plane can run in the global
      context of each device, or be implemented as a separated overlay
      network, as described in [I-D.behringer-autonomic-control-plane].

























Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   +------------------------------------------------------------+
   |               +----------+ +--------------+                |
   |               |          | | Feedback     |                |
   |               | Intent   | |    Loops     |                |
   |               +----------+ +--------------+                |
   |                         ^     ^                            |
   |                    Autonomic User Agent                    |
   |                         V     V                            |
   | +-----------+        +------------+        +------------+  |
   | | Self-     |        | Autonomic  |        | Network    |  |
   | | knowledge |<------>| Service    |<------>| Knowledge  |  |
   | |           |        | Agents     |        | (Discovery)|  |
   | +-----------+        +------------+        +------------+  |
   |                            ^                     ^         |
   |                            |                     |         |
   |                            V                     V         |
   |------------------------------------------------------------|
   |                 Autonomic Control Plane                    |
   |------------------------------------------------------------|
   |           Standard Operating System Functions              |
   +------------------------------------------------------------+

                                 Figure 1

6.  Security Considerations

   This document provides definitions and design goals for autonomic
   networking.  A full threat analysis will be required as part of the
   development of solutions, taking account of potential attacks from
   within the network as well as from outside.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The work on Autonomic Networking is the result of a large team
   project at Cisco Systems.  In alphabetical order: Ignas Bagdonas,
   Parag Bhide, Balaji BL, Toerless Eckert, Yves Hertoghs, Bruno
   Klauser.

   The ETSI working group AFI (http://portal.etsi.org/afi) defines a
   similar framework for autonomic networking in the "General Autonomic
   Network Architecture" [GANA].  Many concepts explained in this
   document can be mapped to the GANA framework.  The mapping is outside
   the scope of this document.  Special thanks to Ranganai Chaparadza
   for his comments and help on this document.







Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


8.  Informative References

   [GANA]     ETSI GS AFI 002, , "Autonomic network engineering for the
              self-managing Future Internet (AFI): GANA Architectural
              Reference Model for Autonomic Networking, Cognitive
              Networking and Self-Management.", April 2013,
              <http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
              AFI/001_099/002/01.01.01_60/gs_afi002v010101p.pdf>.

   [I-D.behringer-autonomic-control-plane]
              Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
              Autonomic Control Plane", draft-behringer-autonomic-
              control-plane-00 (work in progress), June 2014.

   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis]
              Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., and S. Jiang, "Gap Analysis
              for Autonomic Networking", draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-
              analysis-00 (work in progress), April 2014.

   [Jennings]
              Jennings et al, B., "Challenges for federated, autonomic
              network management in the Future Internet", Integrated
              Network Management-Workshops, 2009. IM '09 DOI: 10.1109/
              INMW.2009.5195942 Page(s): 87 - 92, 2009.

   [Kephart]  Kephart, J. and D. Chess, "The Vision of Autonomic
              Computing", IEEE Computer vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 41-50,
              January 2003, <http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~griss/agent-
              papers/ieee-autonomic.pdf>.

   [Movahedi]
              Movahedi, Z., Ayari, M., Langar, R., and G. Pujolle, "A
              Survey of Autonomic Network Architectures and Evaluation
              Criteria", IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials Volume:
              14 , Issue: 2 DOI: 10.1109/SURV.2011.042711.00078,
              Page(s): 464 - 490, 2012.

Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: mbehring@cisco.com





Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   Max Pritikin
   Cisco Systems
   5330 Airport Blvd
   Boulder, CO  80301
   USA

   Email: pritikin@cisco.com


   Steinthor Bjarnason
   Cisco Systems
   Mail Stop LYS01/5
   Philip Pedersens vei 1
   LYSAKER, AKERSHUS  1366
   Norway

   Email: sbjarnas@cisco.com


   Alexander Clemm
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose , California  95134-1706
   USA

   Email: alex@cisco.com


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

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   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





Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            Autonomic Networking                 July 2014


   Laurent Ciavaglia
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: Laurent.Ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com















































Behringer, et al.       Expires January 29, 2015               [Page 15]


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