Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
Olen Stokes <ostokes@extremenetworks.com> Wed, 15 August 2012 18:38 UTC
Return-Path: <ostokes@extremenetworks.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 9E42E21F8733 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 tlY6WJRMRFr5 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ussc-casht-p1.extremenetworks.com (ussc-casht-p2.extremenetworks.com [207.179.9.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8987621F870F for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com ([10.0.4.74]) by ussc-casht-p2.corp.extremenetworks.com ([10.255.181.88]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:38:03 -0700
From: Olen Stokes <ostokes@extremenetworks.com>
To: Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:38:01 -0700
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
Thread-Index: Ac17ErPTZN1QUmmCSvK6zfhaIXCEjAAATRUg
Message-ID: <A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5025AB94FE8E4@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com>
References: <812700A304640D4292205D5E83FC59E1061C211D@p-embx01-eq.jnpr.net> <CAG=JvvjYk_E6+Qdidyyjc5oDss9HeA2aq2pt5ciQeX06fuiWsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1reLL2_4KRb6yseJK9WTB47YzumMBGdu+UwcOWXxmE0M8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAG=JvvjVhGsVcSzEFxDKKfNckQxgQiWeezWvwpcoAOSgOP--Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rd_p6x_+PsHWtsYU=oOCT-GnmnZNL+MHcJf4NEG5boP7A@mail.gmail.com> <B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE38014A33BC4A@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com> <CAG4d1reWGjUU-z=9Gx_MvetAWF6wM8oUMpQRc9hxOg1MU37X_w@mail.gmail.com> <A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5025AB94FE6D2@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com> <CAG4d1rfD8_0WgzRqH-OVAxfn1RYNfY_ynwkcmqN3MBYyrn5TnQ@mail.gmail.com> <3512BB31280C39448A9880F61DD54CEB09C07E@xmb-aln-x09.cisco.com> <CAG4d1rcvk1RmRmrpCwiAGx9s0v3X9aPECdeF1Wz7WSuYwzdFKA@mail.gmail.com> <CACKN6JH8eiYty3QOZ+E5Nt0wO3nYn87yB3pKixJK-3dnaOXfLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACKN6JFMZqOnHU=vEkx8WxwSLjg5MYY=-VoJ7uOt8SAzvbAT6Q@mail.gmail.com> <A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5025AB94FE847@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com> <CACKN6JFkzS7NLTWQOoP9UjtZQTFK5PTNrc6Ay_GZJuLaxt6R+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACKN6JFkzS7NLTWQOoP9UjtZQTFK5PTNrc6Ay_GZJuLaxt6R+w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5025AB94FE8E4USEXCHANGEc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>, "David Lake (dlake)" <dlake@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
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, 15 Aug 2012 18:38:06 -0000
I understand that. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I am trying to understand if usage of the word "controller" on this list implies a reference to any existing description such as "Open Flow Controller". Olen From: Edward Crabbe [mailto:edc@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:20 PM To: Olen Stokes Cc: Alia Atlas; David Lake (dlake); irs-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments The software (interacting with the 'applications' and) generating the actual PDUs understood by the NEs. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Olen Stokes <ostokes@extremenetworks.com<mailto:ostokes@extremenetworks.com>> wrote: Thanks. Can you also give us what you mean by "controller". Olen From: Edward Crabbe [mailto:edc@google.com<mailto:edc@google.com>] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:24 PM To: Alia Atlas Cc: David Lake (dlake); Olen Stokes; irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments s/wg/pre-BOF proto-wg :P/g On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com<mailto:edc@google.com>> 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 <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> 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) <dlake@cisco.com<mailto:dlake@cisco.com>> 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: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:23 AM > To: Olen Stokes > Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org> > 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 <ostokes@extremenetworks.com<mailto:ostokes@extremenetworks.com>> 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: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> >> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas >> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM >> To: Shah, Himanshu >> Cc: Gert Grammel; irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>; 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 <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>> 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: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org> >>> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>] 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; >>> irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org> >>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments >>> >>> ...snip... >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Scott Whyte <swhyte@google.com<mailto:swhyte@google.com>> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> 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 >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Scott Whyte
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Scott Whyte
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Ramon Casellas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- [irs-discuss] 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Alia Atlas
- [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Acee Lindem
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau