Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <james.kempf@ericsson.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 4E96521F869F for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.224
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.375, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 zDrtIAW-VYp6 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EFD21F84EF for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q6VGQrjv022097; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:26:55 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:26:48 -0400
From: James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:26:46 -0400
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
Thread-Index: Ac1utuNdwFa7paQGSZqcfD2Ky9h1zAAgdpfQ
Message-ID: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98A72@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rfCqjjPBJT46HYY7hCH0zw1iSx_-BfpR20vB=Q+pWEPaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, "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 16:27:00 -0000

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
> >>
>