Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Rob,

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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.

[Alia] Arbitrary AUTHORIZED entities - and we will probably need
policy around what type of state and policy can be added so that basic
routing assumptions aren't broken.

> Exporting information is fine - no objection at all.

[Alia] Kind of you - a feedback loop is important.

> 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.

[Alia] Are you suggesting the application should be the master of the
information?  Or the router?  The application could add information
and own (based upon its authorization and role hierarchy) that data as
far as not having it removed.   I'm a bit puzzled by where you are
obtaining this assumption from?

> 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.

[Alia] Do you mean because we haven't ironed out absolutely all of the
details, requirements and data-models, there is no point in discussing
what would be useful and working on doing so?

[Alia]  I've asked for your concerns, thoughts on the
problem-statement, and possible use-cases.  Instead of engaging, I
feel like you've thrown up your hands and said "it's too uncertain"
when we are clearly in the early stages of defining those things.

Alia

> Best Rgs,
> R.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2012:3:39 PM, at 3:39 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:18 AM
>>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss