1. Network Intent concepts draft-moulchan-nmrg-network-intent-concepts-00
Kaarthik Sivakumar
Mouli Chandramouli
Cisco Systems

2. Objectives Definitions of Network Intent
Differentiate Network Policy, Network Configuration
A proposal for realizing Network Intent
Some use cases
Next steps of Research

3. First, several efforts on this topic
Network Intent
First, several efforts on this topic
“Autonomic” network intent – distributed policy
Domain Specific Language based approaches – NEMO , Promise theory
Implementations often imply Intent = Network configuration
Please see section from RFC 2578 (SMIv2) on this issue:   Relation between INDEX and AUGMENTS clauses     When defining instance identification information for a conceptual     table:     (1)  If there is a one-to-one correspondence between the conceptual rows     of this table and an existing table, then the AUGMENTS clause     should be used. I know this text, and read the above. Hence I concluded on AUGMENTS. However, I missed the "sparse" aspect of the following paragraph.     (2)  Otherwise, if there is a sparse relationship between the conceptual     rows of this table and an existing table, then an INDEX clause     should be used which is identical to that in the existing table.     For example, the relationship between RFC 2233's ifTable and a     media-specific MIB which extends the ifTable for a specific media     (e.g., the dot3Table in RFC 2358), is a sparse relationship.

4. Network Intent – Architecture
Definition
Network Administrator articulates a desired / expected outcome from the network
Multiple approaches to realize Network Intent
Can lead to conflicts with the state of the network or conflicts with previous intents
Confusion with Network Policy, Service Models, Network Configuration
Please see section from RFC 2578 (SMIv2) on this issue:   Relation between INDEX and AUGMENTS clauses     When defining instance identification information for a conceptual     table:     (1)  If there is a one-to-one correspondence between the conceptual rows     of this table and an existing table, then the AUGMENTS clause     should be used. I know this text, and read the above. Hence I concluded on AUGMENTS. However, I missed the "sparse" aspect of the following paragraph.     (2)  Otherwise, if there is a sparse relationship between the conceptual     rows of this table and an existing table, then an INDEX clause     should be used which is identical to that in the existing table.     For example, the relationship between RFC 2233's ifTable and a     media-specific MIB which extends the ifTable for a specific media     (e.g., the dot3Table in RFC 2358), is a sparse relationship.

5. Network Intent – Architecture
User
Intent API
SDN Controller
Intent Engine
Instruct network
Device 1
Device 2
Device 3
Please see section from RFC 2578 (SMIv2) on this issue:   Relation between INDEX and AUGMENTS clauses     When defining instance identification information for a conceptual     table:     (1)  If there is a one-to-one correspondence between the conceptual rows     of this table and an existing table, then the AUGMENTS clause     should be used. I know this text, and read the above. Hence I concluded on AUGMENTS. However, I missed the "sparse" aspect of the following paragraph.     (2)  Otherwise, if there is a sparse relationship between the conceptual     rows of this table and an existing table, then an INDEX clause     should be used which is identical to that in the existing table.     For example, the relationship between RFC 2233's ifTable and a     media-specific MIB which extends the ifTable for a specific media     (e.g., the dot3Table in RFC 2358), is a sparse relationship.

6. Network Intent – Use cases
Place a video call from User A to User B
What are congested links in the network ?
Please see section from RFC 2578 (SMIv2) on this issue:   Relation between INDEX and AUGMENTS clauses     When defining instance identification information for a conceptual     table:     (1)  If there is a one-to-one correspondence between the conceptual rows     of this table and an existing table, then the AUGMENTS clause     should be used. I know this text, and read the above. Hence I concluded on AUGMENTS. However, I missed the "sparse" aspect of the following paragraph.     (2)  Otherwise, if there is a sparse relationship between the conceptual     rows of this table and an existing table, then an INDEX clause     should be used which is identical to that in the existing table.     For example, the relationship between RFC 2233's ifTable and a     media-specific MIB which extends the ifTable for a specific media     (e.g., the dot3Table in RFC 2358), is a sparse relationship.

7. Network Intent – Next steps
Problem definition stage
Solution approach in research
Multiple approaches are pursued
Autonomic based techniques
DSL based techniques
We are considering Natural Language Processing, ML and AI
Suggestions/Collaborations welcome