Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS

Tina TSOU <> Tue, 07 August 2012 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DECB21F85F3 for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.005
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.593, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8RpPch07N8Ws for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EDB21F851E for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIP49062; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:25:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:23:39 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:23:33 -0700
From: Tina TSOU <>
To: Edward Crabbe <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
Thread-Index: AQHNcQtKYupMqDzFFUKNbFLCjNCRxpdPaLsA//+LZRA=
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:23:32 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A81589DBDCdfweml513mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:25:38 -0000

Nitin said topo information export is on the sub-layer under IRS.


From: [] On Behalf Of Edward Crabbe
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS


If topo information export is in scope (which I believe it is) and PBR route injection with nh recursion to rib (and thus connected routes) is in scope (which I'm quite sure it is) then yes, this is in scope.

Although I'm not sure what it has to do with OF /OF controllers? ;P
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Robert Raszuk <<>> wrote:

This morning Scott mentioned that he would like to use IRS to shut down all protocols and just be able to write to RIB. Now James said that he would like to get a network topology as "every OpenFlow controller requires this"

Both connected together resulted in an idea of using multi-topology-routing where your base topology discovers physical link connectivity graph while other topologies could be programmed by external entities example: OF controllers or any other external to routers network intelligence oracles to deliver actual services ?

Would that be in scope of IRS effort ? If so what would be the proposed "write to RIB" set of protocols ? Would you support OF 1.3 even if one would be happy to lock such topologies only to software/programmable switching paths ?

Best rgs,
irs-discuss mailing list<>