Re: [irs-discuss] if-map example

Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org> Thu, 02 August 2012 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ping@pingpan.org>
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 7BCE621F8B88 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 6h+F5J5IL8sf for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 40C6C21F8B6F for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f52.google.com ([209.85.213.52]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUBsA0HRJpbE+XRKOUN+m5Et14uh0iI1i@postini.com; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:36:01 PDT
Received: by mail-yw0-f52.google.com with SMTP id p61so65528yhp.25 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=VbNF75kNcxAVkuMJGwXhAeumzPzv8km/Jqud4OhPwcY=; b=JwwBvhtaOSULbu6n5W8PGyR771+hXGHr+5rQFZRulsGJrq0M0rVZ4aPAHDPP6Q6Bvl DWLfkZFnC8glF6n+QFkemfrkkMFEUXpxvD7Nx1fxv4HSaFxgTbUIe4KG+bgniqFGKEr6 9t3sJWUt2VdjKgnGs7bFXYEytgE4/edv42Y76ome5dJ5GufvG90vzVhoapSv00eWFqcf u/Lay3zQe0DpwLcdCF3k6Xz0grTEJKNO7YB6P6bB/8KZncVeKwX1T3dn4ZAOyJRHsYZT Noc9JAmwnJAaNd9/zNgoKj7IUiFuPXJkKHdgB0tuCPV39zTfLW5Reszt2CcvD1MZYGQG X4bw==
Received: by 10.101.6.24 with SMTP id j24mr7158212ani.5.1343946960666; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm13173229yhi.15.2012.08.02.15.35.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so60961yhq.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.119.76 with SMTP id a12mr385336icr.2.1343946959547; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.11.225 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <443803C3-E36B-48C1-947D-8AEB19BE94C1@gmail.com>
References: <632FAE8B-8CC5-4701-BB42-1C4EACE372D5@gmail.com> <CAM9otXwawWA72ROyLxPhRAyPZzWeiuGYvnQp=cd41ry7YfPMVQ@mail.gmail.com> <443803C3-E36B-48C1-947D-8AEB19BE94C1@gmail.com>
From: Ping Pan <ping@pingpan.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:35:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM9otXzYwgpD3qiB+_GjMt0F1F3tmpWNDJHwHpdsTDuK2smwYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pedro Roque Marques <pedro.r.marques@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf30223d5d1eede204c65009d3"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkyjRG6+PAgdxoC7vJuuhv/xWhAcDxmAbardnuDN2MOoY+ZlYSNFKmnPztXDKhvVtRCiCWD
Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] if-map example
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:36:04 -0000

And this can be extended to apply more than L3VPN...

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Pedro Roque Marques <
pedro.r.marques@gmail.com> wrote:

> As an additional example, the following document describes a schema that
> can be used to provision a VPN (which is implemented by many PEs as
> individual VRFs).
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-marques-l3vpn-schema
>
> The document is still in its early stages.
>
> The problems that can be solved by such a schema is to be able to, for
> instance:
> 1) Query the MAP database for all PEs where a specific VPN is present.
> 2) Ensure that the VRFs associated with a specific VPN consistently
> implement the same policy.
>
> These are both examples of functionality that spans the network rather
> than be localized to a specific router/switch/appliance.
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Ping Pan wrote:
>
> After playing around with a bunch of other schemes, this indeed is one of
> the better ones to use as the base.
>
> Ping
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Pedro Roque Marques <
> pedro.r.marques@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As i pointed out in the RT area meeting, i believe that IF-MAP is a
>> successful example of what can be achieved by network-wide schemas (vs
>> network element schemas).
>>
>> The current spec is at:
>>
>> http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/files/resource_files/2888CAD9-1A4B-B294-D0ED95712B121FEF/TNC_IFMAP_v2_1r15.pdf
>>
>> if-map.org has lots of material on the use cases.
>>
>> As per my comment on the mic, i'd like to encourage the IRS to focus on
>> data schemas that describe network state.
>>
>> thank you,
>>   Pedro.
>> _______________________________________________
>> irs-discuss mailing list
>> irs-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>>
>
>
>