Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

We do need to clarify what is meant by an application.  I would not
expect that real user-land applications would talk directly to routing
devices via IRS.  I can see that going through an intermediary.  The
IRS abstractions are unlikely to be as high-level as user-land
applications would want and the security and policy issues would get
exciting.

Clarifying what applications are more in-scope initially is part of
where use-cases will help.  Can you write up ones to
categorize/describe your thoughts?

Alia

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM, David Lake (dlake) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> As another newbie to this, I have some questions about "application vendors."
>
> Who is the target audience here ?   That will determine what functionality and abstraction of the network we need to expose to that "application."
>
> This presently appears to be a little confused - at least in my mind.  The draft talks very much as if the application we are addressing is an OSS/BSS system, essentially provisioning from the domain owner.
>
> However, linking this to the wider goals of SDN as voiced by customers/users at the first Open Network Summit, there appears to be a desire for cross-domain and user-land application integration.
>
> At this level - as an example giving a content cache the ability to ensure delivery of an HD video to an end user - the application will not be interested in the underlying topology of the network; it will  need to know that application X can be delivered with parameters Y between reading from the content store to delivery to the user's browser.   How the stream traverses the infrastructure is immaterial.
>
> Are we intending that IRS satisfies BOTH these requirements (i.e. for ALL applications ?), or should we be more prescriptive about which application space we are addressing ?
>
> Thanks
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:23 AM
> To: Olen Stokes
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>
> I have not specifically heard from application vendors about this.
> My current plan is that we focus on a Use-Cases draft and define within that some motivating use-cases that we agree are good first targets.  Those can drive which subset of functionality we focus on.
>
> More use-cases are, of course, quite welcome.  Posting them to the mailing list is a good first start.  Russ White is starting the general use-cases draft based on the three use-cases that he sent to the list.
>
> Alia
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Olen Stokes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Are there applications vendors out there that already have specific requirements for what this " subset of the data-models for sub-interfaces"  should be?
>>
>> Olen
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:08 AM
>> To: Shah, Himanshu
>> Cc: Gert Grammel; [e-mail]; Lenny Giuliano; Thomas Nadeau;
>> Alia Atlas; Scott Whyte
>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>>
>> Hi Himanshu,
>>
>> Welcome.   I agree that IRS isn't going to spring into being fully
>> formed - I expect that we'll focus on a subset of the data-models for sub-interfaces along with an associated protocol (whether that is a new one or extending an existing one).
>>
>> Alia
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Shah, Himanshu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Newbie to this discussions list and have read only a last couple of mails, so pardon the repeat if somebody has already raised the following as a concern.
>>>
>>> I realize we are early in IRS architecture definition but one thing to keep in mind is the user experience.
>>> We need to make sure that exposed interface to
>>> RIB/LFIB/FIB/IGPs/BGP/LSDBs etc etc  provide a consistent predictive action/response/events even when different implementations has varying capabilities.
>>>
>>> At the moment it seems like a wild wild west.
>>> Perhaps IRS can be defined in phases starting with a simpler, limited version..
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> himanshu
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail]
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
>>> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:41 AM
>>> To: Scott Whyte
>>> Cc: Thomas Nadeau; Gert Grammel; Alia Atlas; Lenny Giuliano;
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>>>
>>> ...snip...
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Scott Whyte <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I do think it is important to have the RIB as an arbitration mechanism
>>>>> on the device.   Russ's suggestion that for the RIB sub-interface, the
>>>>> IRS agent might communicate logically to an IRS routing process
>>>>> gives good semantics and interactions.  Obviously, implementations
>>>>> may differ.
>>>>
>>>> As long as the arbitration mechanism is reconfigurable by the
>>>> operator to whatever precedence they want, I agree.  Its not clear
>>>> to me if various RIB implementations treat all proffered routes the
>>>> same, nor if they store the same meta-data with all protocol sources.
>>>> So there needs to be some way for the operator to leverage exposed
>>>> protocol-specific optimizations, without conflict from the other
>>>> routing processes, if they so desire.  OTOH if it can all be done
>>>> via static routes, it seems much simpler. :)
>>>
>>> Clearly the IRS sub-interface for the RIB needs to introduce/define the different precedences; my assumption is that it would be per route with a well-defined small set of meta-data.  This is part of where having good use-cases will help us understand what behavior is necessary.  The static  routes do seem like a simpler case to start with.
>>>
>>> Alia
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> irs-discuss mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> irs-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss