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

James:

This is the full detailed routes.  However, will every ISP share it's ISIS topology.

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:21 PM
To: James Kempf
Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward

Hi James,

On the topic of topology export it is my understanding that we do 
already have a solution which in fact even authors of IRS framework 
support and are putting under their umbrella.

That is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-01

The draft as standards track document defines the topology export 
standard in form of link and node NLRIs with bunch of TLVs.

So the key aspect would be to see what is missing and if something is 
missing in the space of topology export to evaluate if this solution by 
principle can be extended to accommodate it.

Best,
R.

> 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
>
>

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