Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

[Edward Crabbe <[e-mail]>]

s/wg/pre-BOF proto-wg :P/g

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Edward Crabbe <[e-mail]> wrote:

> +1 Alia.  There's been a lot of confusion over this term.  Having gone a
> few rounds with folks on this one in other forums, I'll point out that what
> most people mean by application (myself included) is some set of control
> software (a scheduler, a path optimizer etc)  that provides instructions to
> the controller, which are in turn translated to the appropriate PDUs.
>
> Having 'end user' applications request/make changes to forwarding state
> without an intermediate broker/aggregator acting on their behalf sounds
> like a recipe for disaster for operational networks, or, as is more likely,
> a quick hike to the protocol grave yard (followed by a long grave-side
> party :P) for the wg.
>
> my 2c.
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> We do need to clarify what is meant by an application.  I would not
>> expect that real user-land applications would talk directly to routing
>> devices via IRS.  I can see that going through an intermediary.  The
>> IRS abstractions are unlikely to be as high-level as user-land
>> applications would want and the security and policy issues would get
>> exciting.
>>
>> Clarifying what applications are more in-scope initially is part of
>> where use-cases will help.  Can you write up ones to
>> categorize/describe your thoughts?
>>
>> Alia
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM, David Lake (dlake) <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > As another newbie to this, I have some questions about "application
>> vendors."
>> >
>> > Who is the target audience here ?   That will determine what
>> functionality and abstraction of the network we need to expose to that
>> "application."
>> >
>> > This presently appears to be a little confused - at least in my mind.
>>  The draft talks very much as if the application we are addressing is an
>> OSS/BSS system, essentially provisioning from the domain owner.
>> >
>> > However, linking this to the wider goals of SDN as voiced by
>> customers/users at the first Open Network Summit, there appears to be a
>> desire for cross-domain and user-land application integration.
>> >
>> > At this level - as an example giving a content cache the ability to
>> ensure delivery of an HD video to an end user - the application will not be
>> interested in the underlying topology of the network; it will  need to know
>> that application X can be delivered with parameters Y between reading from
>> the content store to delivery to the user's browser.   How the stream
>> traverses the infrastructure is immaterial.
>> >
>> > Are we intending that IRS satisfies BOTH these requirements (i.e. for
>> ALL applications ?), or should we be more prescriptive about which
>> application space we are addressing ?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:23 AM
>> > To: Olen Stokes
>> > Cc: [e-mail]
>> > Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>> >
>> > I have not specifically heard from application vendors about this.
>> > My current plan is that we focus on a Use-Cases draft and define within
>> that some motivating use-cases that we agree are good first targets.  Those
>> can drive which subset of functionality we focus on.
>> >
>> > More use-cases are, of course, quite welcome.  Posting them to the
>> mailing list is a good first start.  Russ White is starting the general
>> use-cases draft based on the three use-cases that he sent to the list.
>> >
>> > Alia
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Olen Stokes <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >> Are there applications vendors out there that already have specific
>> requirements for what this " subset of the data-models for sub-interfaces"
>>  should be?
>> >>
>> >> Olen
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [e-mail]
>> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM
>> >> To: Shah, Himanshu
>> >> Cc: Gert Grammel; [e-mail]; Lenny Giuliano; Thomas Nadeau;
>> >> Alia Atlas; Scott Whyte
>> >> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>> >>
>> >> Hi Himanshu,
>> >>
>> >> Welcome.   I agree that IRS isn't going to spring into being fully
>> >> formed - I expect that we'll focus on a subset of the data-models for
>> sub-interfaces along with an associated protocol (whether that is a new one
>> or extending an existing one).
>> >>
>> >> Alia
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Shah, Himanshu <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Newbie to this discussions list and have read only a last couple of
>> mails, so pardon the repeat if somebody has already raised the following as
>> a concern.
>> >>>
>> >>> I realize we are early in IRS architecture definition but one thing
>> to keep in mind is the user experience.
>> >>> We need to make sure that exposed interface to
>> >>> RIB/LFIB/FIB/IGPs/BGP/LSDBs etc etc  provide a consistent predictive
>> action/response/events even when different implementations has varying
>> capabilities.
>> >>>
>> >>> At the moment it seems like a wild wild west.
>> >>> Perhaps IRS can be defined in phases starting with a simpler, limited
>> version..
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> himanshu
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: [e-mail]
>> >>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
>> >>> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:41 AM
>> >>> To: Scott Whyte
>> >>> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; Gert Grammel; Alia Atlas; Lenny Giuliano;
>> >>> [e-mail]
>> >>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>> >>>
>> >>> ...snip...
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Scott Whyte <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> I do think it is important to have the RIB as an arbitration
>> mechanism
>> >>>>> on the device.   Russ's suggestion that for the RIB sub-interface,
>> the
>> >>>>> IRS agent might communicate logically to an IRS routing process
>> >>>>> gives good semantics and interactions.  Obviously, implementations
>> >>>>> may differ.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As long as the arbitration mechanism is reconfigurable by the
>> >>>> operator to whatever precedence they want, I agree.  Its not clear
>> >>>> to me if various RIB implementations treat all proffered routes the
>> >>>> same, nor if they store the same meta-data with all protocol sources.
>> >>>> So there needs to be some way for the operator to leverage exposed
>> >>>> protocol-specific optimizations, without conflict from the other
>> >>>> routing processes, if they so desire.  OTOH if it can all be done
>> >>>> via static routes, it seems much simpler. :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Clearly the IRS sub-interface for the RIB needs to introduce/define
>> the different precedences; my assumption is that it would be per route with
>> a well-defined small set of meta-data.  This is part of where having good
>> use-cases will help us understand what behavior is necessary.  The static
>>  routes do seem like a simpler case to start with.
>> >>>
>> >>> Alia
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> irs-discuss mailing list
>> >>> [e-mail]
>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> irs-discuss mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > irs-discuss mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> irs-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>>
>
>