Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

Olen Stokes <ostokes@extremenetworks.com> Wed, 15 August 2012 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ostokes@extremenetworks.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 70D2421F8879 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 nlsUq1+tKf-a for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ussc-casht-p1.extremenetworks.com (ussc-casht-p2.extremenetworks.com [207.179.9.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8E321F8839 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com ([10.0.4.74]) by ussc-casht-p2.corp.extremenetworks.com ([10.255.181.88]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:43:29 -0700
From: Olen Stokes <ostokes@extremenetworks.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:43:27 -0700
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
Thread-Index: Ac165vtcYYt4PdYBQh2nm9DShDU0rQABDvZg
Message-ID: <A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5025AB94FE6D2@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com>
References: <812700A304640D4292205D5E83FC59E1061C211D@p-embx01-eq.jnpr.net> <CAG=JvvjYk_E6+Qdidyyjc5oDss9HeA2aq2pt5ciQeX06fuiWsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1reLL2_4KRb6yseJK9WTB47YzumMBGdu+UwcOWXxmE0M8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAG=JvvjVhGsVcSzEFxDKKfNckQxgQiWeezWvwpcoAOSgOP--Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rd_p6x_+PsHWtsYU=oOCT-GnmnZNL+MHcJf4NEG5boP7A@mail.gmail.com> <B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE38014A33BC4A@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com> <CAG4d1reWGjUU-z=9Gx_MvetAWF6wM8oUMpQRc9hxOg1MU37X_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1reWGjUU-z=9Gx_MvetAWF6wM8oUMpQRc9hxOg1MU37X_w@mail.gmail.com>
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
Cc: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>, Lenny Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@juniper.net>, Scott Whyte <swhyte@google.com>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
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: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:43:30 -0000

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: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM
To: Shah, Himanshu
Cc: Gert Grammel; irs-discuss@ietf.org; 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 <hshah@ciena.com> 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: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] 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; 
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>
> ...snip...
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Scott Whyte <swhyte@google.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> 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
> 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