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

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net> Tue, 07 August 2012 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@juniper.net>
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 935A621F8598 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 zbc8M6G6dnGi for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE72821F858E for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUCGVKJQpJO0NEPd6PeufOO7G4tqOZzqj@postini.com; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:22:51 PDT
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:22:30 -0700
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:22:29 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:22:28 -0400
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>
To: Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com>, "robert@raszuk.net" <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:22:28 -0400
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
Thread-Index: Ac106yDW0rpjVyedTvSyEf6htA24Hg==
Message-ID: <CC470D43.3140%tnadeau@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACKN6JFMxAiF63XPyUtGxE85iA1WpCe9S_y=yB684HA=57OsgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:22:52 -0000

I agree. The only related thing is that you can run both on the same box, effectively creating another "hybrid" scenario, or as we like to call it, tri-brid. *)

--Tom


From: Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com<mailto:edc@google.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 6:19 PM
To: "robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>" <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>" <irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS

Robert,

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 <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
Hi,

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,
R.
_______________________________________________
irs-discuss mailing list
irs-discuss@ietf.org<mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss