Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS

Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Wed, 08 August 2012 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2628E11E80EA for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.025
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.025 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.573, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZQ+V7tW2pmyB for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBB511E80E2 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIZ47401; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:11:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:07:54 -0700
Received: from DFWEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.5]) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.102]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:07:50 -0700
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
Thread-Index: AQHNcQtKYupMqDzFFUKNbFLCjNCRxpdPaLsA//+LZRCAAJkkAP//rxEWgACL/oD//4xXPQ==
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 04:07:51 +0000
Message-ID: <472BCA45-0462-45E0-BE89-339799915A9C@huawei.com>
References: <501B150C.9080304@raszuk.net> <CACKN6JFMxAiF63XPyUtGxE85iA1WpCe9S_y=yB684HA=57OsgQ@mail.gmail.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A81589DBDC@dfweml513-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAG4d1rfKmEeTTuKAtuKzhHUwW47_1w1U4QfC=cffzUP01mJTEA@mail.gmail.com> <B36AC993-114B-42CB-B059-9FFC8F8A5CB6@huawei.com>, <CAG4d1rcdV_m8VD=rCka6jK=y9yO7TvuNS=j0f0yxCUCvNQ5CfA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rcdV_m8VD=rCka6jK=y9yO7TvuNS=j0f0yxCUCvNQ5CfA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_472BCA45046245E0BE89339799915A9Chuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com>, "robert@raszuk.net" <robert@raszuk.net>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 04:11:40 -0000

So, r u updating Nitin's statement as following?
Top layer: Northboundapi
Middle layer: IRS
Bottom layer: IRS (topo export)

Tina

On Aug 7, 2012, at 9:01 PM, "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:

The requirement for topology export is DEFINITELY part of IRS.  It is
a crucial piece for a meaningful feedback loop.   Clearly there are
existing technology pieces that may have a role to play as well.

Alia

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com<mailto:Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>> wrote:
Oh, I meant in Nitin's description in the mailing list, there are 3 sub-layers of a orchestrator.
Top layer: Northboundapi
Middle layer: IRS
Bottom layer: topo export

Therefore, the topo export is not part of IRS. It is another layer which sits below IRS.

Tina

On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:30 PM, "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:

Topology export is definitely under the umbrella of IRS - and we are
actively starting to think about the associated requirements and
use-cases.   Feel free to contribute - on the list or towards drafts!

Alia

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com<mailto:Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>> wrote:
Nitin said topo information export is on the sub-layer under IRS.



Tina



From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Edward Crabbe
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:20 PM
To: robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>


Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS



Robert,



If topo information export is in scope (which I believe it is) and PBR route
injection with nh recursion to rib (and thus connected routes) is in scope
(which I'm quite sure it is) then yes, this is in scope.



Although I'm not sure what it has to do with OF /OF controllers? ;P

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:

Hi,

This morning Scott mentioned that he would like to use IRS to shut down all
protocols and just be able to write to RIB. Now James said that he would
like to get a network topology as "every OpenFlow controller requires this"

Both connected together resulted in an idea of using multi-topology-routing
where your base topology discovers physical link connectivity graph while
other topologies could be programmed by external entities example: OF
controllers or any other external to routers network intelligence oracles to
deliver actual services ?

Would that be in scope of IRS effort ? If so what would be the proposed
"write to RIB" set of protocols ? Would you support OF 1.3 even if one would
be happy to lock such topologies only to software/programmable switching
paths ?

Best rgs,
R.
_______________________________________________
irs-discuss mailing list
irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss




_______________________________________________
irs-discuss mailing list
irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss