Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.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 64E2321F85F9 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 icYMm9CVmZRu for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484EC21F869A for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D87D2205B55; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SO-PpMMaDgSw; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tnadeau-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950AC2205B52; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:30:54 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\))
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98A72@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:30:55 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D13BF772-5766-4BD2-8B6A-CF473A057AEE@lucidvision.com>
References: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rdS8pa=2cQFhrrV2ZRqdp91Zwf_GVMcWA7xFNFf7Mgh5w@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB9874A@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rfCqjjPBJT46HYY7hCH0zw1iSx_-BfpR20vB=Q+pWEPaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98A72@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
To: James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485)
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
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 16:30:57 -0000

	James, 

	While an implicit goal to not invent anything that can be recycled and still meet the requirements, we are at present not proposing any solutions. We are trying to identify the problem space and define a framework containing the components needed to solve the problem(s).

	--Tom


On Jul 31, 2012:9:26 AM, at 9:26 AM, James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>; wrote:

> Hi Alia,
> 
> With respect to the interfaces defined in RFC 5810, it seems to me that IRS is not proposing to replace existing routing protocols (OSPF, IS-IS) so it seems it would be the Fp interface. But I have not studied the Forces docs in detail recently so I may be in error.
> 
> 		jak 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:53 PM
>> To: James Kempf
>> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; irs-discuss@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
>> 
>> Hi James,
>> 
>> The routing system components are certainly part of a 
>> router's control plane - but not all of it.  The idea of IRS 
>> involves sub-interfaces to the different layers in the routing system.
>> 
>> Can you clarify what you are asking as it relates to ForCES and IRS?
>> I don't feel that we're on the same page yet.
>> 
>> Alia
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, James Kempf 
>> <james.kempf@ericsson.com>; wrote:
>>> Hi Alia,
>>> 
>>> Perhaps you can explain to me the difference between the 
>> state involved in "the routing system (FIB, IGPs, BGP, 
>> RSVP-TE, etc.)" and the control plane? The last time I 
>> looked, these protocols were all involved in routing control 
>> and therefore could reasonably be characterized as components 
>> of the control plane, IMHO.
>>> 
>>>                jak
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:27 PM
>>>> To: James Kempf
>>>> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; irs-discuss@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
>>>> 
>>>> Hi James,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your thoughts.   Streaming (as I've heard) is 
>> not as good a
>>>> description of the desired interface attributes as 
>> described in Sec 
>>>> 1.1, the functional overview.
>>>> 
>>>> IRS is NOT about having interfaces to the forwarding plane.  That's
>>>> what ForCES is focused on.   This is about communication 
>> to a router
>>>> to install/retrieve routing state into the routing system 
>> (FIB, IGPs,
>>>> BGP, RSVP-TE, etc.)   IRS is NOT splitting the control 
>> plane from the
>>>> router.
>>>> 
>>>> Are you suggesting that ForCES should drastically expand its scope?
>>>> 
>>>> Before we start debating what and whether to expand existing 
>>>> protocols, I think we need a common understanding of the problem 
>>>> we're trying to solve and the related framework.
>>>> 
>>>> Alia
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:11 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
>