Re: [irs-discuss] [forces] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS)

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Mon, 27 August 2012 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <hadi@mojatatu.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 B730F21F861A for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rm1w5UOGIAnM for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361B821F8616 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so9128506obb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=E55zgiJEoYjDjM2oimSkdjAOZnq8gfkTTNi+LTRLWKw=; b=QdM6tt29UyBBJIZ21keYlW81lU6/mZPs88fpgANzH+xI2qdEE5YYUWMYmQ/8Wmhnvc 0E4ORyTTqXIa/gFAbOC7O30cB3VzJrxrajl7vKnaU4g/6PwRPjS6yGWI4zxCCAj6RXaz M3uWDc+kFS8Eu2crYkF6ET2InihaFe3ChY5S1ILwlZQKq8YUzSPa5kxrBlB+JUNEiZqF hd71as3oy/FtNjDRjoUhlP3TkBsc9p2aK3i36+y1NGkNkczrqWLzvslOP5b46SbH8Lz2 dXdYM8lR3aBEZarfpcKxvHYh5qTVx4NZpWwpwl/vwO2VmSp9BIyqsgIZi0xqJrKl6jpe QZDw==
Received: by 10.182.78.161 with SMTP id c1mr9769015obx.88.1346071188657; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.97.71 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001301cd844b$82678b50$8736a1f0$@ndzh.com>
References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B1462376A586@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAAFAkD-akBhHAO9PE7XX+nfrvy1bJwtvTn-aq52zMG0KVw0axQ@mail.gmail.com> <001301cd844b$82678b50$8736a1f0$@ndzh.com>
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:39:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAFAkD-8Lse6+uVnBtnY0NEN1wCA5p73=i7JKo4GXpxcxbRA=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmEWsyOfpYmMRsAPCcsXX23h3p6JgC77AnqPXEiB3BIE9GoVPWE4osFUSqgoje3aR+r+hom
Cc: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>, irs-discuss@ietf.org, Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, tnadeau@juniper.net, akatlas@juniper.net, wardd@cisco.com, forces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] [forces] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS)
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, 27 Aug 2012 12:39:49 -0000

Hi Sue,

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> Jamal:
>
> Can you give an example of how IRS and Forces might interact via this route
> socket?
> Due to the wide background on the lists (irs & forces) , it would be good to
> give an example within a switch or router as context.

Just the example i posted from the RFC which demonstrates access to a FIB
and nexthop tables. All of that can be delivered with ForCES (given netlink
was an input in ForCES design).
The semantics to a RIB as opposed to a FIB are different.  Example, the
credentials are weaker on the FIB aspects (the "protocol" field in the
route message). But all that is a model issue i.e ForCES is agnostic
of the description.

I know you are a guru in this area - so hoping to get some wisdom.
Sorry for dragging this discussion into this direction.

cheers,
jamal