Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

...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