Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 10 August 2012 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 519D021F8713 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:40:20 -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 67u3Nw1iKWip for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C5C21F873A for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15195 invoked by uid 399); 10 Aug 2012 19:41:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.58?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.13.163.62) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 10 Aug 2012 19:41:18 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 83.13.163.62
Message-ID: <502563A0.4020905@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:40:16 +0200
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>
References: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rdS8pa=2cQFhrrV2ZRqdp91Zwf_GVMcWA7xFNFf7Mgh5w@mail.gmail.com> <50170D34.503@joelhalpern.com> <ED65813C-777D-4DA3-AA37-D371A365AD16@lucidvision.com> <1FB014C5-8B5A-4D34-82AD-D8E64A0098FF@raszuk.net> <CAG4d1rf8Gfsf0cWsKFMpsE=mvAhC6Hg+7qttb+gn84X2vYft2A@mail.gmail.com> <82E1F44F-5EB2-4B06-8682-724555B51896@raszuk.net> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623759D2F@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623759D2F@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>, James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
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: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:40:20 -0000

Hi Sue,

My below email expresses no questions or issues towards 
draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution.

The streaming aspect of IRS framework into BGP or IGPs was questioned.

Best regards,
R.

> Robert:
>
> [Catching up with old email]
>
> Why are you concerned with the streaming aspects of the data from BGP and ISIS?  If you are could you cross post to idr@ietf.org.
> We are considering the draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution at this time.
>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:11 PM
> To: Alia Atlas
> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; James Kempf; Joel M. Halpern; irs-discuss@ietf.org; Thomas Nadeau
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
>
> What is not clear for me is ability from arbitrary entities to be able to write to BGP or ISIS at sort of ad-hoc streaming. I do not see anything good can be seen as result of this.
>
> Exporting information is fine - no objection at all.
>
> However for programming state into dynamic system the entity which writes in should be the master and not the slave which unfortunately as of now it looks like it is the latter.
>
> Perhaps you have in mind just adding bunch of ACLs on the edges, perhaps just add static routes, perhaps insert network statements into BGP configuration. But till details are defined and till we understand how is this any better from already standards based tools to do the same I think it is well premature to judge any benefit from the IRS framework.
>
> Best Rgs,
> R.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Rob,
>>
>> We've been trying.  I've written semi-copious words so far.
>> I'd be happy to discuss with you in person as well and get your
>> thoughts on reasonable use-cases.
>>
>> Describing an elephant for the first time is always tricky.
>>
>> Perhaps you could describe your perspective on the problem and what
>> you think is unclear.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> Yes indeed .. Clearly defining what problem are you trying to solve would be greatly helpful.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2012:3:39 PM, at 3:39 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alia, I do have to disagree with one aspect of your characterization fo ForCES.  While the initial design goal was forwarding behavior, the protocol design is such that it is usable over a broad range of abstraction levels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, depending upon exactly what we need, netconf + Netmad/YANG may be suitable / useable.
>>>>
>>>>    We are not ruling out any existing solutions, either in whole or in part (modified). The goal right now is to define the problem space and a framework of components that can be used to solve that problem.
>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, I think that working out the problems and entities that need to be modeled first (which probably does need a dedicated working group), and then worrying about which protocol meets the requirements when we know what exactly we need.  At that point, the protocol work can be done wherever appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>    Yes, that is precisely what the goals are right now.
>>>>
>>>>    --Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yours,
>>>>> Jitl
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/30/2012 6:27 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your thoughts.   Streaming (as I've heard) is not as good a
>>>>>> description of the desired interface attributes as described in Sec
>>>>>> 1.1, the functional overview.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IRS is NOT about having interfaces to the forwarding plane.  That's
>>>>>> what ForCES is focused on.   This is about communication to a router
>>>>>> to install/retrieve routing state into the routing system (FIB, IGPs,
>>>>>> BGP, RSVP-TE, etc.)   IRS is NOT splitting the control plane from the
>>>>>> router.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that ForCES should drastically expand its scope?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before we start debating what and whether to expand existing
>>>>>> protocols, I think we need a common understanding of the problem we're
>>>>>> trying to solve and the related framework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:11 PM, James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>; wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't understand why streaming is specified in this draft. And I don't understand why this draft isn't put in the Forces framework. Forces is a framework explicitedly designed for device to controller communication. Its major drawback it that it is a framework with a hole in the middle, in that there are no specified devices. This draft would fill that hole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it is necessary to have a problem statement for router state update. Forces has already established that splitting the control plane into a separate device is, in some cases, an attractive design option. So I think this should be submitted to the Forces working group, or, at least, recast in the Forces framework.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                jak
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:18 AM
>>>>>>>> To: irs-discuss@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please review and discuss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom, Alia, Ward
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://lucidvision.com/draft-atlas-irs-problem-statement-00.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
>