Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
"Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 15 August 2012 16:59 UTC
Return-Path: <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.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 E33AA21F8826 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 4nycHV7Tv0aq for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B116A21F85AC for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q7FGxQZ2016536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:59:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub03.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.80]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q7FGxP10008577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:29:25 +0530
Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.50]) by INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.80]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:29:25 +0530
From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:29:23 +0530
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
Thread-Index: Ac17Bgaqgwk9l/rTQpG8K2ktnROtcAAAME+w
Message-ID: <C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E09F22C53B7@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <812700A304640D4292205D5E83FC59E1061C211D@p-embx01-eq.jnpr.net> <CAG=JvvjYk_E6+Qdidyyjc5oDss9HeA2aq2pt5ciQeX06fuiWsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1reLL2_4KRb6yseJK9WTB47YzumMBGdu+UwcOWXxmE0M8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAG=JvvjVhGsVcSzEFxDKKfNckQxgQiWeezWvwpcoAOSgOP--Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rd_p6x_+PsHWtsYU=oOCT-GnmnZNL+MHcJf4NEG5boP7A@mail.gmail.com> <B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE38014A33BC4A@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com> <CAG4d1reWGjUU-z=9Gx_MvetAWF6wM8oUMpQRc9hxOg1MU37X_w@mail.gmail.com> <A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5025AB94FE6D2@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com> <C584046466ED224CA92C1BC3313B963E09F22C53B3@INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAG4d1rfbdK5YQZzGwqNPRjHYwjv67hVBDxsL-aAZ75QtKvuTKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rfbdK5YQZzGwqNPRjHYwjv67hVBDxsL-aAZ75QtKvuTKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
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, 15 Aug 2012 16:59:41 -0000
I agree. I saw your responses later and I think building strong use-cases first would help. I am looking more from an implementation perspective and thus interested to see what makes more realistic. Thanks, Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:50 AM To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal) Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments This is why I want to focus on use-cases. From there, I think we can develop realistic requirements. Feel free to contribute :-) Alia On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal) <pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > +1. I am a newbie and have been observing the discussions so far. However it is not clear to me about the requirements. I think a sound approach is to solidify the requirements and then think about the solutions (APIs, the real-time transaction protocol etc). > > Thanks, > Pranjal > > -----Original Message----- > From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olen Stokes > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:43 AM > To: Alia Atlas; Shah, Himanshu > Cc: Gert Grammel; irs-discuss@ietf.org; Lenny Giuliano; Thomas Nadeau; Alia Atlas; Scott Whyte > Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments > > Are there applications vendors out there that already have specific requirements for what this " subset of the data-models for sub-interfaces" should be? > > Olen > > -----Original Message----- > From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM > To: Shah, Himanshu > Cc: Gert Grammel; irs-discuss@ietf.org; Lenny Giuliano; Thomas Nadeau; Alia Atlas; Scott Whyte > Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments > > Hi Himanshu, > > Welcome. I agree that IRS isn't going to spring into being fully > formed - I expect that we'll focus on a subset of the data-models for sub-interfaces along with an associated protocol (whether that is a new one or extending an existing one). > > Alia > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Shah, Himanshu <hshah@ciena.com> wrote: >> Newbie to this discussions list and have read only a last couple of mails, so pardon the repeat if somebody has already raised the following as a concern. >> >> I realize we are early in IRS architecture definition but one thing to keep in mind is the user experience. >> We need to make sure that exposed interface to >> RIB/LFIB/FIB/IGPs/BGP/LSDBs etc etc provide a consistent predictive action/response/events even when different implementations has varying capabilities. >> >> At the moment it seems like a wild wild west. >> Perhaps IRS can be defined in phases starting with a simpler, limited version.. >> >> Thanks, >> himanshu >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas >> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:41 AM >> To: Scott Whyte >> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; Gert Grammel; Alia Atlas; Lenny Giuliano; >> irs-discuss@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments >> >> ...snip... >> >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Scott Whyte <swhyte@google.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> I do think it is important to have the RIB as an arbitration mechanism >>>> on the device. Russ's suggestion that for the RIB sub-interface, the >>>> IRS agent might communicate logically to an IRS routing process >>>> gives good semantics and interactions. Obviously, implementations >>>> may differ. >>> >>> As long as the arbitration mechanism is reconfigurable by the >>> operator to whatever precedence they want, I agree. Its not clear to >>> me if various RIB implementations treat all proffered routes the >>> same, nor if they store the same meta-data with all protocol sources. >>> So there needs to be some way for the operator to leverage exposed >>> protocol-specific optimizations, without conflict from the other >>> routing processes, if they so desire. OTOH if it can all be done via >>> static routes, it seems much simpler. :) >> >> Clearly the IRS sub-interface for the RIB needs to introduce/define the different precedences; my assumption is that it would be per route with a well-defined small set of meta-data. This is part of where having good use-cases will help us understand what behavior is necessary. The static routes do seem like a simpler case to start with. >> >> Alia >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Scott Whyte
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Gert Grammel
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Scott Whyte
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments David Lake (dlake)
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Olen Stokes
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Robert Raszuk
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Lin Han
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Ramon Casellas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- [irs-discuss] 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Alia Atlas
- [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: 答复: IRS comments Mach Chen
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Acee Lindem
- Re: [irs-discuss] 答复: 答复: IRS comments Susan Hares
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Edward Crabbe
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Alia Atlas
- Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments Thomas Nadeau