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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 08 August 2012 05:33 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 D09B511E812B for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, 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 0J4H+zDDcmoL for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E9A11E8135 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so408362yen.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:33:17 -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=5GHw/T42YVDMuY9P/YgBmMHrLEU2TJYfWmz5K+n0xO4=; b=XENYtJX+8JaN7GjYwIWTbFkr7dbXtQgWZs9/QXcM+HpiL4Ni8ZomI9VPcZTCdVLPcA qi/pUosQi2qaVtq/E42MsXTgVAeZ+6U8dS5hNpamWbPuPc0YUTtcBekB4UBqKKt53AxI 63qry+y+9s33YZjo1VyupC2HYi6/EK/mvcy0/ldpP8mexzPzCEK6B4SEKAhDk4i37P+7 BM4g6RzvSyqyfmikzlYs16gcAsG/xSwCiXX3lykBrAkCy7j3gqAZ2rTLK5aFN5mXy9Qz sFGCoKOO3+98l5oO/35Xb7OC2SxiPZ6Xwf9LuWTriMEqpEWkP+Or/B7j1GbGFDiLXMFA uqGQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.194.132 with SMTP id hw4mr684292igc.63.1344403982683; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.91.135 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A81589F363@dfweml513-mbs.china.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> <CAG4d1reP=H4fSY=89vNyz9i+FWwf19v77+=hcYaZdnXqEQEL7w@mail.gmail.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A81589F363@dfweml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 01:33:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdHwHzpCZNa4SAUi4STV790qCyf5YWTbMndeW1_i3EbTg@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 05:33:18 -0000

Tina,

IRS makes no statement about orchestrators; I'm pretty sure the word
doesn't appear in either draft at all.  Certainly an orchestrator is a
type of application that could use IRS.

IRS includes routing state, topology, and the ability to get
measurements and dynamic events.  All may be needed for a meaningful
feedback loop run by an application.

Alia


On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> wrote:
> Alia,
> It is just to clarification.
> Just to confirm that draft-atlas and draft-ward state that IRS positions below the northboudapi in an orchestrator, and IRS includes both routing state and topo export. Is it correct understanding?
> Thank you.
>
> Tina
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:38 PM
>> To: Tina TSOU
>> Cc: Edward Crabbe; robert@raszuk.net; irs-discuss@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >