Re: [i2rs] Results of WG Adoption Call: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Russ,

I think that we realized that documenting all the use-cases in one draft
was going to be unwieldy and not provide enough detail on the specific
requirements.

I think that the use-cases will fall into protocol-specific ones, RIB or
"protocol-agnostic" ones, topology-specific ones, and "interacts with
multiple protocols" cases.  For the latter, I think we just have to
document them separately or, possibly if they are developing at similar
maturity, in a common draft.

More specifically, what we have in charter is:

  - Tightly scoped key use cases for operational use of I2RS as follows:
    o Interactions with the Routing Information Base (RIB). Allowing read
      and write access to the RIB, but no direct access to the Forwarding
      Information Base (FIB).
    o Control and analysis of the operation of the Border Gateway Protocol
      (BGP) including the setting and activation of policies related to
      the protocol.
    o Control, optimization, and choice of traffic exit points from
      networks based on more information than provided by the dynamic
      control plane.
    o Distributed reaction to network-based attacks through rapid
      modification of the control plane behavior to reroute traffic for
      one destination while leaving standard mechanisms (filters, metrics,
      and policy) in place for other routes.
    o Service layer routing to improve on existing hub-and-spoke traffic.
    o The ability to extract information about topology from the network.
      Injection and creation of topology will not be considered as an
initial work item.

I could see a separate detailed use-case draft for each of these...  We
need the use-cases flushed out to describe the feedback loop, the
frequency, and the information needed for writing and reading and events.

Alia



On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Russ White <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > I'm a bit confused at this point about when those decisions were changed,
> > and how we intend to proceed.
>
> I have one possible suggestion, after looking at the structure of the
> drafts
> again. What I think we might want to do is to pull the bgp use cases from
> draft-white to bolster the bgp use cases draft, moving the bgp use cases
> draft to an editor/contributor format (since it already has a lot of co's).
> The remaining use cases can be put into a rib uses cases draft, where we
> can
> collect all the various "routing protocol agnostic" use cases. Again, we
> could move this to editor/contributor --I'll be happy to hold the editor
> baton for this new draft.
>
> There may be some question about what fits where (are all the bgp uses
> really limited to bgp? Do we want a separate overlay use cases, or should
> these fall into the protocol related draft they work with?), but I think
> this is a workable model to get all the use cases organized into a
> reasonable set of drafts that can be added to, etc., until the WG gets to
> the point of having a 'first set' of use cases on the table. After this
> initial batch is actually published, then it's going to be better to
> continue with individual drafts for individual use cases, rather than
> bis'ing this set, I think.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Russ
>
>