Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 C797A11E80E1 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 CdO-o2uzEmsl for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA10E11E80B8 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so5840696ggn.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/xgtIiztz2gWuKchVeCZRqBs2MiLte2ts63nTIAD88E=; b=iKC7oj6iLXmQp21vKMco3k9ECjI0JWMjHRB87cGwwEMwCtbDdtthOy7r8S+ek9eLIr PlY760tWtDn2AUpT7NJmmo5RcS6kCIs8XbCh4+upG2R1waZuq5cCAb3JS5JHo326odwl OoMGXXrBpM4vWuW14mxRsPFZjLIh9Yb1EX/AP9+65gX9enSY12EER4arZowIDQcpYY5R 9DjmODvKqFCr+nWGhYu1DZyRL0KTObZHqM2D8BxPYLhPc15HBp+c/Nes1h/qsWZSaW39 ryvBQU3i0S+JH5sVjGk3L0klLwMB0+SBGoqP+JwjAwi9GMdEDD1aOJdnWlbouHU1UWfl /uqw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.0.137 with SMTP id 9mr180882ige.18.1343687231078; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.34.169 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:27:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdS8pa=2cQFhrrV2ZRqdp91Zwf_GVMcWA7xFNFf7Mgh5w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:27:13 -0000

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