Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Dean:

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.  I was looking for it, but I'm glad
you watched Croatia (I'm sorry about Croatia's loss). 

 

I agree with the types of policies and the status: persistent, transient,
and ephemeral.  However, do we ever let I2RS upon a command transfer
policies to the persistent storage?  This what I read in REQ04.    In
reading the email, I'm not sure how to summarize the WG's approach.  My
answer would be "no", but if this is a WG document the answer needs to come
from the WG.

 

Sue 

 

From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dean Bogdanovic
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:44 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: <[e-mail]>; Susan Hares; <[e-mail]>; t.petch; Keyur Patel
(keyupate); Hannes Gredler; Russ White
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

 

Susan, 

 

Sorry for late reply, but yesterday started a very significant quadrennial
event (FIFA World Cup) and Croatia played (and lost with help of the
referee).

 

WRT REQ04, I agree with the posts and here are few thoughts on this

 

We should try to divide policies into few categories.

 

1. persistent

There is a set of policies that have to be available from very start on the
device. Those policies should be persistent on the device and I see them
changing infrequently. IMO, there is no need for I2RS to manage those
policies, readonly access is sufficient.

2. transient

Policies that are temporary defining some fwd behavior of device. I can see
lot of cases where different applications based on some network conditions
want to change forwarding behavior. Those should not be available after
reboot. 

3. locally defined

by this I mean policies that defined by admin, applications through local
I2RS agent. These can be transient and persistent, where I would classify
that I2RS agent policies are only transient. Actually after rereading this,
I would even consider policies defined by I2RS as remotely defined and
therefore transient.

4. remotely defined

by this I mean policies pushed from a different device (policy server,
router) via some protocol (DIAMETER, RADIUS, BGP). IMO, those should be
always ephemeral.

 

Dean

 

On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:





Dean:

 

I combined REQ01/02 and REQ08/09.  I've put the requirements in the front of
the text.  Please let know if have any suggestions on these approved
changes.  I wait 24 hours, and then spin the draft.

 

On the agreement on REQ04, I cannot find a firm consensus.  I would ask Jeff
Haas or Ed Crabbe to indicate if they think there is a consensus on the WG.
I highlight a few messages below. The document is proposed for WG consensus
so I will change it if the WG has consensus.

 

 

Sue Hares

 

 

Search for Consensus

=====

Based on your comment, I sent looking for WG Direction regarding BGP or I2RS
putting state.   I cannot find it.  BGP has a Flow specification (RFC5575).
Where do you think those flow specifications end up?  Writing into runtime
configuration state? Writing into something like I2RS running data store?
BGP ORFs might be kept in the BGP state or in associated features
(Add/delete) in BGP, but Flow specifications are targeted toward data flow.

 

On the list I could find the following:

 

1. I2RS BGP state to configuration - Wes George (operator) makes a comment
that I2RS configuration should not replace current configuration related to
BGP. 

 

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg00826.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg00826.html

 

 

 

2. There is the Architecture Discussion 2: Persistence (ephemeral vs.
permanent) - is the debate for the architecture document regarding keeping
state in the I2RS

Begin: 

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01027.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01027.html

 

Joel's: no state across a reboot: 

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01034.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01034.html

 

 

3. Wes George (operator) makes a comment that I2RS configuration should not
replace current configuration related to BGP. 

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg00826.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg00826.html

 

 

There is the Architecture Discussion 2: Persistence (ephemeral vs.
permanent)

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01027.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01027.html

 

 

Multiple clients writing to agents (raised by Himanshu Shah)

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01139.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01139.html

 

 

Jeff (chair hat off) states he does not want to have I2rs changing state
tables come from routing protocols (BGP--> I2RS state).  He also feel
dynamic state tables should be read-only, and not writable as suggested by
the use case.

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01666.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01666.html

 

 

In the same thread, Sri states the I2RS agent should not provide an
interface to change a table if there is no use-case to support it.  Dynamic
protocols --> I2RS (I2RS read only).  I2RS--> RIB-IM.   Sri states " I am
yet to see a use-case that requires direct manipulation of a single dynamic
routing-protocol-instance specific route table by something other than that
protocol. I don't believe there should be any such case."    However, here
it has been in the BGP use case.

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01671.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01671.html

 

 

Jeff responds to Sri in tends to agree and does not mention the use case.

 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01752.html>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01752.html

 

 

Sue Hares

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:deanb@ <http://juniper.net> juniper.net]

Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 4:03 PM

To: Susan Hares

Cc: t.petch; <[e-mail]>; Keyur Patel (keyupate); Hannes Gredler; Russ
White; Susan Hares; < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

 

Susan,

 

Many people don't know what NLRI abbreviation stands for (Network Layer
Reachability Information , so writing it out first time would be a good
idea.

 

Throughout the text, the requirement number sequence is confusing until you
get to the very and where all requirements are listed and then it makes
sense.

 

REQ04: The ability to interact with various policies configured on

      the forwarding devices, in order to inform the policies

      implemented by the dynamic routing processes.  This interaction

      should be through existing configuration mechanisms, such as

      NETCONF, and should be recorded in the configuration of the local

      device so operators are aware of the full policy implemented in

      the network from the running configuration.

It is not clear to me if your requirement is that dynamic protocols should
impose persistent policies? It says it should be recorded in the
configuration of the local device.

 

I agree that those policies should be visible to operators and other
applications, but not sure if dynamic protocols should be allowed to
implement persistent policies. IMO, those should be ephemeral policies.

So maybe text should look like this

This interaction should be through existing configuration mechanisms, such
as NETCONF, and should be recorded in the running or ephemeral configuration
of the local device so operators are aware of the full policy implemented in
the network from the running configuration.

 

I'm trying to see major difference between REQ01/REQ02 and REQ08/REQ09?

 

In general I'm not sure if changing entries by dynamic protocol in RIB is a
good idea. If you plan to change only what is configured on the local
device, then that is OK, but if you start changing entries that are pushed
from other devices in the network, the system would get unstable. And it
looks to me that REQ09 would allow that.

 

Dean

 

 

On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:47 AM, Susan Hares < <mailto:[e-mail]>
[e-mail]> wrote:

 

> Tom:

> 

> I'm glad to change the citation in the abstract.    On the authors, this
was

> merge of two drafts.

> 

> Sue

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@ <http://btconnect.com> btconnect.com]

> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 4:35 AM

> To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]

> Cc: 'Keyur Patel (keyupate)'; Hannes Gredler; Russ White; 'Susan

> Hares';  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

> Subject: Re: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action:

> draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

> 

> Sue

> 

> Currently you have six authors which is too many for an RFC - someone's

> got to go!   For me, this is not just an admin point - when commenting,

> I like to have one or two names, no more, as the clear pen holders

> whom I can expect to act.  Too often, with so many names, everyone

> thinks that someone else will do something and nothing happens, so, in

> all seriousness, I oppose adoption until you sort this out amongst
yourselves.

> 

> Note too that you have a citation in the Abstract, again not allowed -

> this can be surprising difficult to get round but get round it you,

> one or more thereof, must.

> 

> Tom Petch

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Susan Hares" < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>

> To: <[e-mail]>

> Cc: "'Keyur Patel (keyupate)'" < <mailto:[e-mail]>
[e-mail]>; "Hannes Gredler"

> < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; "Russ White" <
<mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; "'Susan Hares'"

> < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]>; < <mailto:[e-mail]>
[e-mail]>

> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:49 PM

> Subject: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action:

> draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

> 

> 

>> Jeff and Ed:

>> 

>> This updated draft has all the changes that Keyur Patel promised and

> updates

>> to the reference the current i2rs internet drafts.

>> 

>> Would you please do a Working Group adoption call?

>> 

>> Thank you,

>> Sue Hares

>> 

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs- <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]] On
Behalf Of

>>  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:44 PM

>> To:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>> Cc: [e-mail]

>> Subject: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

>> 

>> 

>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

>> directories.

>> This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System

> Working

>> Group of the IETF.

>> 

>>        Title           : Use Cases for an Interface to BGP Protocol

>>        Authors         : Keyur Patel

>>                          Rex Fernando

>>                          Hannes Gredler

>>                          Shane Amante

>>                          Russ White

>>                          Susan Hares

>> Filename        : draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02.txt

>> Pages           : 17

>> Date            : 2014-06-04

>> 

>> Abstract:

>>   A network routing protocol like BGP is typically configured and

>>   analyzed through some form of Command Line Interface (CLI) or

>>   NETCONF.  These interactions to control BGP and diagnose its

>>   operation encompass: configuration of protocol parameters, display

> of

>>   protocol data, setting of certain protocol state and debugging of

> the

>>   protocol.

>> 

>>   Interface to the Routing System's (I2RS) Programmatic interfaces,

> as

>>   defined in draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture, provides an alternate way

> to

>>   control and diagnose the operation of the BGP protocol.  I2RS may

> be

>>   used for the configuration, manipulation, analyzing or collecting

> the

>>   protocol data.  This document describes set of use cases for which

>>   I2RS can be used for BGP protocol.  It is intended to provide a

> base

>>   for the solution draft describing a set of interfaces to the BGP

>>   protocol.

>> 

>> 

>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

>>  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases/

>> 

>> There's also a htmlized version available at:

>>  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02

>> 

>> A diff from the previous version is available at:

>>  <http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02>
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02

>> 

>> 

>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of

> submission

>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
<http://tools.ietf.org> tools.ietf.org.

>> 

>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

>>  <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> i2rs mailing list

>> [e-mail]

>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> i2rs mailing list

>> [e-mail]

>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

>> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> i2rs mailing list

> [e-mail]

>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

 

<draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-03.txt><draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-0
3.txt.pdf>