Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 01:39 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 A8B2211E8088 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 n-Q1EB5gPpbN for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:39:36 -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 D822D21F843E for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so5942429ghb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:39:35 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nLuSMkuo2yRNYg7+GqAGdS+6ifapS3hrey53d8wI36g=; b=X+cg2MD8gnikfM860uEWXws8Mh06BRaCfKYFm5Teeg7f+OW5u4vqqxNaEsMzYQFiK5 hvdatA49KMYVRbMQD/J5sntIokiL093Sh02/ndAhhPGUDnzmDh6jJTdjTqoLM9mOiZOs tb8gaNB9+R1qIdFXEmnJGVbK403Wy2WeMbcxEsunkVjxGzleUPrUl7zxhQbgpcBWiBJF zfj92hwz4n3MA3VpE7Ck0mxP02SePGypT+a1bUGnXBqgu3XmY1PRUbmUtm0ytMAj01at 1mL6fAgvLNkOn/2liQGZd8rHWIxxdzb5Tw6Ye6h2d5tSDQOnqfihCO2IjkSCHZJsFOwJ riww==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.213.1 with SMTP id no1mr469081igc.71.1343698775070; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.34.169 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623754A18@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CC3C59B2.2275E%nitinb@juniper.net> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623754A18@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:39:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfmt1rDziTk7MV8E88=i=fA8SEKHrqHdBkkLyZFH-h+-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>, James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
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: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:39:36 -0000

Sue,

I certainly agree that we want IRS to have the ability to express
information at different abstraction layers and filtered on request.

There may still be a gap between the "network OS abstractions" and IRS
sub-interfaces; I'd be surprised if there weren't.  IRS is to provide
the bottom-up control strings.

IMHO, it's reasonable to have an entity that manages the translation.
For instance, one doesn't need a PCE-equiv in every application - nor
in every router; that might be an entity in between.

The quantity of information is part of why explicit filtering and
hopefully abstraction layers should be built into the data-models.

Alia

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>; wrote:
> Nitin:
>
> Exposing some network intelligence can either be done in detail or in some amount of summarization.
> If you are doing detail, you have bandwidth issues. If you are doing summarization or opacity, you are talking about layers of information.
>
> Apps need to find out what they need to get. They do not need all the details - just the fact they can get from point A to Point B (or for multi-cast B/C/D). They need to where they can go to date other applications.  They need a match-maker for the application who determine where the applications shall flow.  Now, if they are smart - like people going out to eat - they pick several ways go to eat traffic.
>
> The network orchestration then serves to be the paths to the place to eat.  This can either be distributed or centralized.
>
> If we have an Interface to routing, it need to have a two-layer concept of exposing information.
>
> Sue Hares
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:33 PM
> To: James Kempf; Thomas Nadeau; irs-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
>
> Hi James,
>
> This is not about splitting control plane and forwarding plane. It is about exposing network intelligence in the network elements to an external controller.
> And it is about allowing an external controller to use that information for enabling network-aware apps. And it is about allowing apps to influence the
> network element's RIB (not the FIB directly).
>
> Streaming is essential to allow for operations at scale...and avoid a request/response gated mechanism.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Thanks
> Nitin
>
> On 7/30/12 3:11 PM, "James Kempf" <james.kempf@ericsson.com>; 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: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:18 AM
>> To: irs-discuss@ietf.org
>> 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
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss