Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 00:48 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 08B6011E80DE for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:48:16 -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 FigcKuWzS6qF for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:48:15 -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 1215811E80BA for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so5909760ghb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:48:14 -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=17JPAEchThe0i+i3Sn4BIjdJp4tZjOawkR9WJvXeelo=; b=ALdbYxa3O1VRq2l+W8/CUq2zaoYQyvBCp+zpi1/Wgax5o/Oe4UgrEjOYEJtFnUYwOa uCcgFjsRTuMcYIAkB08WLIBK/Dp7xyjJY8Gx+T1ZV4WdjKthUAtw3W2AALE6gpSkMbrt aDUn7SozOe8dd62nkyjIywr+VoPtjQxerfpUib6Fi4fROhDgDSvb44HzlwZTrBB3OhAG /NXjAfscHDS4dBygGpX2oQ3IqrNe8l8gvMnriNi8R2UeJaN5lIIb7UFtANf7rlvfhkjT SuO4Z5W0m5E1qm7Iaj1R6u121ax3CPCyyE7VAzb/zk7Kf04vcJOig+RqqFYrYaaOz81q CWgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.0.137 with SMTP id 9mr446591ige.18.1343695693581; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.34.169 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <50170D34.503@joelhalpern.com>
References: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rdS8pa=2cQFhrrV2ZRqdp91Zwf_GVMcWA7xFNFf7Mgh5w@mail.gmail.com> <50170D34.503@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:48:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdDN7+2dEWEgFG=w7SEf=UF2OXQbaTEtnB2f_D-+usQVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@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 00:48:16 -0000

Joel,

As we define the requirements and use-cases, it's possible that
NetConf or ForCES or other options may appear as good options.

We might even want the ability to use different ones as the transfer
protocol; I'm not yet convinced.

The other strong requirement is around security, authorization,
authentication, roles, etc.  I think that will play a role in helping
define what protocols may be suitable to use or extend.

Alia

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; wrote:
> Alia, I do have to disagree with one aspect of your characterization fo
> ForCES.  While the initial design goal was forwarding behavior, the protocol
> design is such that it is usable over a broad range of abstraction levels.
>
> Similarly, depending upon exactly what we need, netconf + Netmad/YANG may be
> suitable / useable.
>
> On the other hand, I think that working out the problems and entities that
> need to be modeled first (which probably does need a dedicated working
> group), and then worrying about which protocol meets the requirements when
> we know what exactly we need.  At that point, the protocol work can be done
> wherever appropriate.
>
> yours,
> Jitl
>
>
> On 7/30/2012 6:27 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>