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

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Nitin said topo information export is on the sub-layer under IRS.



Tina



From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Edward Crabbe
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:20 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>


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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss




_______________________________________________
irs-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss