Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

[Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 30, 2012:3:39 PM, at 3:39 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alia, I do have to disagree with one aspect of your characterization fo ForCES.  While the initial design goal was forwarding behavior, the protocol design is such that it is usable over a broad range of abstraction levels.
> 
> Similarly, depending upon exactly what we need, netconf + Netmad/YANG may be suitable / useable.

	We are not ruling out any existing solutions, either in whole or in part (modified). The goal right now is to define the problem space and a framework of components that can be used to solve that problem.

> On the other hand, I think that working out the problems and entities that need to be modeled first (which probably does need a dedicated working group), and then worrying about which protocol meets the requirements when we know what exactly we need.  At that point, the protocol work can be done wherever appropriate.

	Yes, that is precisely what the goals are right now.

	--Tom


> 
> yours,
> Jitl
> 
> On 7/30/2012 6:27 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail]
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:18 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> 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
>>>> [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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>