IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward

Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <susan.hares@huawei.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 7FC5D21E804A for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.304
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.695, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, 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 wJYnNmxp4sjr for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D383221E8039 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIJ41138; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:17:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:15:58 -0700
Received: from dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.12.123]) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.151]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:15:55 -0700
From: Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>
To: James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suggestions for IRS Way Forward
Thread-Index: Ac1w/aRFxquJYy0LSJCFfpb4MILlegABYztA
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:15:55 +0000
Message-ID: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623755DFD@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FC6A4FB@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FC6A4FB@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.245.215]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward
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 23:17:42 -0000

James:

How would your network topology representation differ from the ALTO-EXT document - such as 

http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-lee-alto-app-net-info-exchange-00.pdf

I'm sure there are many other topology set of information. 

There is the just dumping isis into BGP. 

draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-02

And the reported ONIX OpenFlow Controller (see below) 

Or the PCE domain sequence
http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01.pdf

What do you want for topologies - or do you want a choice? 

What exactly do you mean by topologies? And what's the use case? 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Kempf
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 3:25 PM
To: irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward

So after seeing part of Alia's talk this morning (I had to leave in the middle unfortunately), I'd like to make a couple suggestions. There were a lot of ideas presented in the talk, enough for an entire IETF Area. I think to make tangible progress, the work needs to be focussed on a small subset that would be of immediate interest and usability. 

There are a couple areas that suggest themselves, but one that would be useful in work that I've been involved in is a standardized format for network topology representation and a protocol for exchanging it. The Onix OpenFlow controller has a network information base with a specialized format for network topology, and every OpenFlow controller requires this. Having a standardized way to represent it might foster a common topology database package. Another application is network management. Every network management system needs some kind of topology representation. Finally, though I am not an expert in PCE construction, it would seem to me that a PCE would need some kind of topology representation in order to perform path calculations. Having a way,for example, for the OpenFlow controller and the PCE to exchange topology information would be really useful.  I would say to start with physical topology because that is fundamental, but make the format flexible enough to support 
 virtual topology representation.

			jak
_______________________________________________
irs-discuss mailing list
irs-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email