Return-Path: 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 BA78D1F0423 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:21:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dFeC4XkZsvyF for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sv-casht-prod1.infinera.com (sv-casht-prod1.infinera.com [8.4.225.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404EA1F0417 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by sv-casht-prod1.infinera.com ([10.100.97.218]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:21:02 -0700 From: Iftekhar Hussain To: Thomas Nadeau , "" Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amante-irs-topology-use-cases-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHNpZmaYmOwEScpT0CHbpU9w3a82Zev95JQ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 22:21:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.100.96.93] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D7D7AB44C06A2440B716F1F1F5E70AE53F98363FSVEXDBPROD1infi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amante-irs-topology-use-cases-00.txt X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org 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: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:21:04 -0000 --_000_D7D7AB44C06A2440B716F1F1F5E70AE53F98363FSVEXDBPROD1infi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tom, Okay, I see. I think, it would be helpful to: * Clarify the context of this example as currently it is a little u= nclear. For example, ROADM layer 'active' topology would normally be 'visib= le' to the IGP's LSDB (i.e., IGPs with GMPLS extensions). * Add few multi-layer topology examples and their use by network ap= plications (e.g., what type of info one would like to reveal etc.). Thanks, Iftekhar From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 2:11 PM To: Iftekhar Hussain; Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amante-i= rs-topology-use-cases-00.txt Hi! The IRS topology effort is not about what is visible to what devices per se= ; its about revealing different topological components in a normalized topo= logy database. So in this example, capturing the active information (which = is visible via LSDB/IGP routing protocols), is complimented with other inac= tive (or passive) topological components. --Tom From: Iftekhar Hussain = > Date: Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:00 PM To: ">" > Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-amante-i= rs-topology-use-cases-00.txt Hi Authors, "...and visible within the Link State Database (LSDB) of an active IGP, but= also network elements who are active, but invisible to a LSDB (e.g.: L2 Et= hernet switches, ROADM's, etc.)" Shouldn't ROADMs topology be visible to IGP? Perhaps you intend to say opti= cal line amplifier (OLA). Regards, Iftekhar --_000_D7D7AB44C06A2440B716F1F1F5E70AE53F98363FSVEXDBPROD1infi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Tom,=

 <= /p>

Okay, I see.  I thin= k, it would be helpful to:

·      = ;   Clarify the conte= xt of this example as currently it is a little unclear. For example, ROADM = layer ‘active’ topology would normally be ‘visible’= to the IGP’s LSDB (i.e., IGPs with GMPLS extensions).=

·      = ;   Add few multi-lay= er topology examples and their use by network applications (e.g., what type= of info one would like to reveal etc.).

Thanks,=

Iftekhar

From: Thomas N= adeau [mailto:tnadeau@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 2:11 PM
To: Iftekhar Hussain; <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-a= mante-irs-topology-use-cases-00.txt

 

 

Hi!

 

The IRS topology effort is&= nbsp;not about what is visible to what devices per se; its about revealing = different topological components in a normalized topology database. So in this example, capturing the active information (which is visible via= LSDB/IGP routing protocols), is complimented with other inactive (or passi= ve) topological components. 

 

--Tom

 

 

From: Iftekhar Hussain <IHussain@infinera.com>
Date: Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:00 PM
To: "<irs-discuss@ie= tf.org>" <irs-discus= s@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-a= mante-irs-topology-use-cases-00.txt

 

Hi Authors,

“…and visible within the Link State Database (LSDB) of a= n active IGP, but also network elements who are active, but invisible to a = LSDB (e.g.: L2 Ethernet switches, ROADM's, etc.)”

Shouldn’t ROADMs topology be visible to IGP? Perhaps you inten= d to say optical line amplifier (OLA).

Regards,

Iftekhar

 

 

--_000_D7D7AB44C06A2440B716F1F1F5E70AE53F98363FSVEXDBPROD1infi_--