[irs-discuss] 答复: Use Cases Draft First Cut

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Thu, 20 September 2012 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.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 6901721F8711 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.788
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jI23zic+GlrT for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0980321F86AD for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AJV78095; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:32:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:30:28 +0100
Received: from SZXEML438-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.73) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:30:52 +0100
Received: from SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.129]) by szxeml438-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.73]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:30:48 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: Russ White <russw@riw.us>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] Use Cases Draft First Cut
Thread-Index: AQHNlmwIHrzrsaF7iUO7mymjxgMOZ5eSxgqg
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:30:47 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE22CA99531@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <5059CAC3.5070100@riw.us>
In-Reply-To: <5059CAC3.5070100@riw.us>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.96.190]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [irs-discuss] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFVzZSBDYXNlcyBEcmFmdCBGaXJzdCBD?= =?gb2312?b?dXQ=?=
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: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:33:03 -0000

Hi Authors,

I just read your draft, here are my comments:

1. For each use case, there list a set of capabilities and requirements, but several of them are the same and repeat in each use case, IMHO, it may be better to put all requirements and capabilities into a separate sections and may be split into the requirement draft in the future.  

2. Optimized Exit Control,
"Summary of IRS Capabilities and Interactions:"
Besides the listed capabilities, IMHO, there should be the capability to monitor the status, bandwidth of specific interfaces, hence to help the controller makes the decision. In addition , from the scalability and flexibility point of view, there should support sub-pub capability, the controller subscribe to and only receive some of the events, entries, interfaces, the agent also only need to send the subscribed information of the controller.  

3. Within Data Center Routing
It seems not nature to conclude that IRS is needed and useful from the usage of BGP in datacenter, read through the sections, it gives me the feeling that it actually proposes centralized routing. It requires to get/inject information from/into specific routing protocols to control the routing. Since the IRS assumed to have the capability to install routes directly into the rib, why we need to inject information to the routing protocol to implicitly control the routing? It cannot guarantee that injected routes finally work, because the routes have to compete with the routes from other protocols. 

4. Central membership computation for MPLS based VPNs
Seems that it proposes to replace MP-BGP with IRS, if so, besides the VPN routes distribution, the controller also need to maintain and allocate labels for each private route; in addition, there also needs some mechanisms for tunnel setup. So, besides the listed capabilities, there IRS need to support more capabilities. 

Best regards,
Mach

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] 代
> 表 Russ White
> 发送时间: 2012年9月19日 21:38
> 收件人: irs-discuss@ietf.org
> 主题: [irs-discuss] Use Cases Draft First Cut
> 
> Y'all:
> 
> Last night I published a new draft on use cases for IRS. Please read and
> send comments!
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-white-irs-use-case/
> 
> Several points to consider:
> 
> 1. I've left all references out at the moment. I suspect this text is
> going to be changing a good bit; putting references in at this early of
> a stage invites reference mismatches through major text revisions.
> 
> 2. I've left out a couple of suggested use cases. I think we need to
> focus on use cases that reach beyond currently available mechanisms, and
> show interaction between multiple pieces of an overall system.
> 
> 3. I've worded some summary points in requirements language,
> specifically using SHOULD in a couple of places. We need to think about
> whether or not these types of references are "proper" in a use cases
> draft of this sort.
> 
> 4. The text is probably still rough around the edges --I've focused more
> on the justification for the work in the introduction than on the actual
> text of the use cases. I'm certain the text in the actual use cases will
> harden as we get comments and edit those sections.
> 
> Again, please read and make comments!
> 
> Russ
> 
> --
> <><
> riwhite@verisign.com
> russw@riw.us
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss