Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

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
<[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM
> To: Shah, Himanshu
> Cc: Gert Grammel; [e-mail]; 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 <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] 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;
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>>
>> ...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
>> _______________________________________________
>> irs-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss