Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 895B121F86BD for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 V83iA5AxmdwV for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9817121F867E for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so6768320ggn.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JiCfCjOulk4tKMlbTY1BX8pWjiSmOWepqMJRfH6Xg2Y=; b=HAfLJAEyNJm5gw1z1vWpjkqeJKxOFARaX3gKJsfxuCWK/fttIycVq/pyhG+f6FjvAR nFjbxVz6LedDzYvZlpNVmUjoj0hc9C9BMcCROXaUum4/P73//aVWMHGPkwToynWFl6OM yzbwqq/9ZXwolMoIhwRopxYc3nHVf6Fj5iOHL0zLoYB+pI0grGopjL2sGEuFQI7QXddg 25Sk/FiP581oNpe8d9DesVVjeI4uZef2ld9DopN8/jRPXMMXTti1NVmv7U/sqzrQkyA9 PK0Pt0seLXxTDRMWw+MfwGgeAP8zZwAInQkSQITBY6hcyRbbfxHDl/WIcWSgROy50iVD UHXg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.237.72 with SMTP id va8mr2594903igc.17.1343753012995; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.34.169 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAFAkD8YYpV=FjozJVABYHr9uBvdEK==ZjP5JNf4wjC65-8D=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rdS8pa=2cQFhrrV2ZRqdp91Zwf_GVMcWA7xFNFf7Mgh5w@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB9874A@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rfCqjjPBJT46HYY7hCH0zw1iSx_-BfpR20vB=Q+pWEPaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98A72@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rfdL-Q7oXCK_=tFS+Qad3GEoWUoA8S5NdYmFzRyJ=3w1g@mail.gmail.com> <CAAFAkD8YYpV=FjozJVABYHr9uBvdEK==ZjP5JNf4wjC65-8D=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:43:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1repmnrdfzj_mA0FWuMbOEKa5EhJLWiTXknJZ=ctKWYmtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
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, 31 Jul 2012 16:43:34 -0000

Yes, I've heard the comments that ForCES may have good characteristics
for the protocol aspects of IRS.  I think we need to focus on
discussing the problem and use-cases - before we start seriously
considering protocols.

More information about them and their potential relevance is always welcome.

Alia

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>; wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> This is one of the key differences - ForCES is about programming the
>> forwarding plane.  IRS is about interfaces to the routing system - the
>> lowest it goes is to the RIB layer.  IMHO, this gives good control and
>> abstraction - no need to model forwarding plane differences.  That's
>> what the router OS is for.
>
> Ok, guess i am going to have say something then;->
> While ForCES did start with intent to do control-datapath interfacing,
> given that:  we have a data model (and language); a protocol that is
> agnostic of what the entity being configured is - over the last few
> years it has been used for anything that can be modelled using
> the ForCES language. Basically model it as an LFB and you are good
> to go.
> I am actually presenting on how we do parts of the FE management
> plane via ForCES at a session today. In our implementation, this
> is how we do remote debug settings, change syslog levels etc.
> Nothing to do with a FIB table programming etc...
>
> cheers,
> jamal