[irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward

James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <james.kempf@ericsson.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 787B511E8105 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8-yPeKYsnosI for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACFD11E813F for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q72MOuqi022929 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:24:58 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:24:55 -0400
From: James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>
To: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:24:54 -0400
Thread-Topic: Suggestions for IRS Way Forward
Thread-Index: Ac1w/aRFxquJYy0LSJCFfpb4MILleg==
Message-ID: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FC6A4FB@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward
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, 02 Aug 2012 22:24:59 -0000

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