Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 08 August 2012 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
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 44CD911E80EA for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 uhD1Kp1lLT8R for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17DBE11E80E2 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so386073ghb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CSWi56B3qVjg6b7/g931PKN6V/B250LzJv5ZV4eBF4s=; b=F7fOHD8r3XZBla8A2o32Wm0e20OSPNvC6/t/0boJ4Jg2Z3amG9MVGRbbn83U0yMSqB 947vG4BhbyJDO2pQgxcdiUFCsQB6vLdQD6kGk1D5EiZGE76h2dUVOql46Keu3uZTyoW0 W1kBdJIvXojbGUhd4VoWYgm2UvL1DwYESqRoD0TOjSpI0i/u2hHpkbw9xumk1nHdN7i+ OY8srvJSKwx5jcAnV2bY1H5Gdw6yJmB1Hz+RyvP2JSJYPPb88mDYppL39yNmk8ok93RC ZJfi/znjcr26osqwQw2Dzblgm0GZ1mVUEstTgjTT39fCQtlljWEPDKHn2Req6kCpJZky hjug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.213.106 with SMTP id nr10mr593690igc.58.1344400695317; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.91.135 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <472BCA45-0462-45E0-BE89-339799915A9C@huawei.com>
References: <501B150C.9080304@raszuk.net> <CACKN6JFMxAiF63XPyUtGxE85iA1WpCe9S_y=yB684HA=57OsgQ@mail.gmail.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A81589DBDC@dfweml513-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAG4d1rfKmEeTTuKAtuKzhHUwW47_1w1U4QfC=cffzUP01mJTEA@mail.gmail.com> <B36AC993-114B-42CB-B059-9FFC8F8A5CB6@huawei.com> <CAG4d1rcdV_m8VD=rCka6jK=y9yO7TvuNS=j0f0yxCUCvNQ5CfA@mail.gmail.com> <472BCA45-0462-45E0-BE89-339799915A9C@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:38:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1reP=H4fSY=89vNyz9i+FWwf19v77+=hcYaZdnXqEQEL7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com>, "robert@raszuk.net" <robert@raszuk.net>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 04:38:17 -0000

Tina,

Nitin made a single comment on this list that you are reading too much into.

I have written the two base drafts for IRS and am working on driving
the definition of the work that is proposed.  The presentation that I
gave in Routing Area Open Meeting CLEARLY describes topology as not
only being in the proposed scope, but one of the more urgent items.

Why are you NOT listening?

Perhaps rereading the problem-statement and framework drafts would
help clarify your mental model?

IRS does not talk about a northboundapi - there are applications that
can use IRS.  How those applications communicate with other
applications is NOT in the proposed scope.

Alia

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>; wrote:
> So, r u updating Nitin's statement as following?
>
> Top layer: Northboundapi
>
> Middle layer: IRS
>
> Bottom layer: IRS (topo export)
>
>
> Tina
>
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 9:01 PM, "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> The requirement for topology export is DEFINITELY part of IRS.  It is
> a crucial piece for a meaningful feedback loop.   Clearly there are
> existing technology pieces that may have a role to play as well.
>
> Alia
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Oh, I meant in Nitin's description in the mailing list, there are 3
> sub-layers of a orchestrator.
>
> Top layer: Northboundapi
>
> Middle layer: IRS
>
> Bottom layer: topo export
>
>
> Therefore, the topo export is not part of IRS. It is another layer which
> sits below IRS.
>
>
> Tina
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:30 PM, "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>
> Topology export is definitely under the umbrella of IRS - and we are
>
> actively starting to think about the associated requirements and
>
> use-cases.   Feel free to contribute - on the list or towards drafts!
>
>
> Alia
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Nitin said topo information export is on the sub-layer under IRS.
>
>
>
>
> Tina
>
>
>
>
> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On
>
> Behalf Of Edward Crabbe
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:20 PM
>
> To: robert@raszuk.net
>
> Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
>
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
>
>
>
> If topo information export is in scope (which I believe it is) and PBR route
>
> injection with nh recursion to rib (and thus connected routes) is in scope
>
> (which I'm quite sure it is) then yes, this is in scope.
>
>
>
>
> Although I'm not sure what it has to do with OF /OF controllers? ;P
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> This morning Scott mentioned that he would like to use IRS to shut down all
>
> protocols and just be able to write to RIB. Now James said that he would
>
> like to get a network topology as "every OpenFlow controller requires this"
>
>
> Both connected together resulted in an idea of using multi-topology-routing
>
> where your base topology discovers physical link connectivity graph while
>
> other topologies could be programmed by external entities example: OF
>
> controllers or any other external to routers network intelligence oracles to
>
> deliver actual services ?
>
>
> Would that be in scope of IRS effort ? If so what would be the proposed
>
> "write to RIB" set of protocols ? Would you support OF 1.3 even if one would
>
> be happy to lock such topologies only to software/programmable switching
>
> paths ?
>
>
> Best rgs,
>
> R.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>