Re: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward

Tom:

So, is ALTO, PCE, Yang modules with topology in scope.

Are you stating that we do not re-inventing the ALTO functions topology (see previous note)? 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 3:32 PM
To: James Kempf; irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward

	I agree that one of the top work items for this effort should be a
standardized topology function, and one that is accessible via a
non-routing protocol.  While not exactly "low hanging fruit", it is
something that (to me) is a clear work item with clear goals that should
be tackled straight away.

	--Tom

On 8/2/12 3:24 PM, "James Kempf" <james.kempf@ericsson.com> wrote:

>So after seeing part of Alia's talk this morning (I had to leave in the
>middle unfortunately), I'd like to make a couple suggestions. There were
>a lot of ideas presented in the talk, enough for an entire IETF Area. I
>think to make tangible progress, the work needs to be focussed on a small
>subset that would be of immediate interest and usability.
>
>There are a couple areas that suggest themselves, but one that would be
>useful in work that I've been involved in is a standardized format for
>network topology representation and a protocol for exchanging it. The
>Onix OpenFlow controller has a network information base with a
>specialized format for network topology, and every OpenFlow controller
>requires this. Having a standardized way to represent it might foster a
>common topology database package. Another application is network
>management. Every network management system needs some kind of topology
>representation. Finally, though I am not an expert in PCE construction,
>it would seem to me that a PCE would need some kind of topology
>representation in order to perform path calculations. Having a way,for
>example, for the OpenFlow controller and the PCE to exchange topology
>information would be really useful.  I would say to start with physical
>topology because that is fundamental, but make the format flexible enough
>to support 
> virtual topology representation.
>
>			jak
>_______________________________________________
>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