Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

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
intentions?

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

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

Alia

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> 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
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss