Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <james.kempf@ericsson.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 AFB6C21F85F9 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.063
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.536, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 kwgks7jKtxgd for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD6B21F85D8 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q6UMmeTT025828; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:48:47 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:48:41 -0400
From: James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:48:39 -0400
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
Thread-Index: Ac1uon0lOLisX2QeT7OIn7le4MDYSgAAsIww
Message-ID: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB9874A@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rdS8pa=2cQFhrrV2ZRqdp91Zwf_GVMcWA7xFNFf7Mgh5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rdS8pa=2cQFhrrV2ZRqdp91Zwf_GVMcWA7xFNFf7Mgh5w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
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: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:48:48 -0000

Hi Alia,

Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between the state involved in "the routing system (FIB, IGPs, BGP, RSVP-TE, etc.)" and the control plane? The last time I looked, these protocols were all involved in routing control and therefore could reasonably be characterized as components of the control plane, IMHO.

		jak 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:27 PM
> To: James Kempf
> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; irs-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts.   Streaming (as I've heard) is not as good a
> description of the desired interface attributes as described 
> in Sec 1.1, the functional overview.
> 
> IRS is NOT about having interfaces to the forwarding plane.  That's
> what ForCES is focused on.   This is about communication to a router
> to install/retrieve routing state into the routing system (FIB, IGPs,
> BGP, RSVP-TE, etc.)   IRS is NOT splitting the control plane from the
> router.
> 
> Are you suggesting that ForCES should drastically expand its scope?
> 
> Before we start debating what and whether to expand existing 
> protocols, I think we need a common understanding of the 
> problem we're trying to solve and the related framework.
> 
> Alia
> 
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:11 PM, James Kempf 
> <james.kempf@ericsson.com>; wrote:
> > I don't understand why streaming is specified in this 
> draft. And I don't understand why this draft isn't put in the 
> Forces framework. Forces is a framework explicitedly designed 
> for device to controller communication. Its major drawback it 
> that it is a framework with a hole in the middle, in that 
> there are no specified devices. This draft would fill that hole.
> >
> > I don't think it is necessary to have a problem statement 
> for router state update. Forces has already established that 
> splitting the control plane into a separate device is, in 
> some cases, an attractive design option. So I think this 
> should be submitted to the Forces working group, or, at 
> least, recast in the Forces framework.
> >
> >                 jak
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
> >> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
> >> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:18 AM
> >> To: irs-discuss@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please review and discuss.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Tom, Alia, Ward
> >>
> >>
> >> http://lucidvision.com/draft-atlas-irs-problem-statement-00.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> irs-discuss mailing list
> >> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > irs-discuss mailing list
> > irs-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>