Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Alia Atlas <> Tue, 31 July 2012 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EA011E8091 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7r3VzmBpXywc for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8F511E808A for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so5989099ggn.31 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=dJgnJJozKcINBAOFvUb3e6CmY2JZWalGtrqw6Xjf7B0=; b=evKKJOMuvTb8uuLEU0aflNrgnxwRWfZuPWetKfbLKUfRDBNcwMwVF85HHNucFsZFu0 RzFb0/RVAkv3D3FAkbUMjmkYCH1bN2VOChUKj7eumd0TpOTrif6Wq5iQsHRleB/AxtG1 fALOTRzwX4cDI/Ri1SmvmHSVxpBmMWPFzPq8V8VGryJzzIdgjLgvYGTlkzrlELlN1EAR kIK18AvGD+MTbaxVtnEx+Fpo5jUxf7NqBb2zX6e9JRHooWmkJSPUWejB4twfm/Pf7abY 3d+lciWs5e8zLlVhAk1iJZGtvrl9pf5XXvtZtH2DYJPHqhZ/ymb//ldgtfUPTTrHSpXi gOgw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id os10mr561089igc.17.1343699889897; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:58:09 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Alia Atlas <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <>, Nitin Bahadur <>, Susan Hares <>, James Kempf <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
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, 31 Jul 2012 01:58:11 -0000

Hi Rob,

On the lower layer, Openflow talks to control/specify the forwarding
plane - heading towards forwarding plane modeling; something that
ForCES did a while ago.  It focuses on Layer-2 and does not interact
with the routing control plane - generally assuming that the routing
control protocol does not/should not exist.   Yes, there is nascent
work on hybrid OpenFlow switches - but that is very far from a model
based on USING the router's OS and routing capabilities and handling
multiple applications installing state.   Retrieving state is also not
a focus in Openflow.

On the upper layer, ONF is starting to tentatively talk about
northbound APIs - which are from OpenFlow controllers up towards
orchestrators or applications.

I  don't, personally, think that IRS should cover the latter upper
layer - though a translation layer and thinking through the network OS
abstractions is certainly interesting and part of the ecosystem.

Would you care to clearly clarify your concerns and assumptions about

The two drafts work at defining what IRS should be; I think that there
is a clear difference in approach and intended functionality from

Surely you aren't suggesting that the IETF should not do anything in
this space because OpenFlow might get around to it someday?


On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Robert Raszuk <>; wrote:
> hi Nitin,
>> So IRS needs to define interfaces for both the lower layer and the upper layer.
> That's precisely what openflow protocol does. Thx for confirming clearly the intentions ;).
> Best regards,
> R.
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list