Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 01 August 2012 22:40 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 F390811E811E for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:40:34 -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 jyJE33yPKYP0 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E88811E8117 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so8526073yhq.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:40:33 -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=jpuZk9gjUxk836dHDpJF//Q8qAL5DgU4+KvDqr4NQSM=; b=a7E4/DKm9W/PMCRJqvpUlO8aBowcXq8Cufix3IFrnkNrSR/fkPds6iZXbh6U6gBFHL wfxjsfeBCtShloGYIZcDoZrxDD2TJA8O5XRVdNw8fL/COqJcxa+bAIWwCQWk3IArqBZ5 80LiUHR5ihkSwnvvIZP80j3QNTw7x4whzK39vCl2Ko2axCIe1JOiMq54HvO5VtRHkYPw 1jE8G1mjHxf3D14sL5s4gVIi2aEt5exa8Zl6fhwIsEA2V7Ch1fyZt9TVkUlU7+vYxAZw +wx8wEw471OyMNj/Yiq/tlnQZa4kGhMdVClCBVYrDOwlgyLXxpO/wlotxjTuNJ/4twhg pFbw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.213.98 with SMTP id nr2mr6564852igc.71.1343860832922; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.34.169 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B146237553E6@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CC3C59B2.2275E%nitinb@juniper.net> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623754A18@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAG4d1rfmt1rDziTk7MV8E88=i=fA8SEKHrqHdBkkLyZFH-h+-g@mail.gmail.com> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B146237553E6@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:40:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcGWPMKo45o9qtAWQr-t3R5ixr5fDRy-p==YVFBOw10yg@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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:40:35 -0000

Sue,

In this case, I was thinking of "translating" from a "higher
abstraction layer" to a "lower abstraction layer".

Do you have a better/different term to suggest?  I agree that clarity
of terminology is important.

Alia

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>; wrote:
> Alia:
>
> +1 on abstraction + filters (abstract/detail) IRS fits at the routing control.
>
> The real question about translation is what the translation is doing.  Is it translating one thing to another at the same layer of abstraction (e.g., Spanish/English, Ascii/ebcdic) or is it doing abstraction/detail change.
>
> I define translation as the same layer of abstraction.  Some people suggest translation = abstract/detailing.  We first need a common way to talk about the difference.
>
> Sue
>
> By the way --- I'm thrilled about the pace of the discussion.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:40 PM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: Nitin Bahadur; James Kempf; Thomas Nadeau; irs-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
>
> 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