Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS

David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> Wed, 08 August 2012 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <dmm@1-4-5.net>
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 C038C21F85E1 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 1X2Ka7ra-VXy for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:59:08 -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 E639D21F8628 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so1504404obb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=4FrKfaWiDOjYIZRYw5gFUhEdmvJTOJLsh+XOslL3Tlw=; b=IPKa6zjCO+8wEYkpcUoN4H0khNik7tZAJbToHGFoocs51ZEChwf7L75yhGhOnvaqsL hyyXn8CZzpNgyip2QqVioMr9TiTfh/wV28Lc4g92aOwFez9nBMW8kfsBWZPlJhqcMw5A x2Vn7DrTAvctjPHKzwnsnmy4jrD6eDtVdElyFZQc07ah0xq3St+/SnRNGGXe9LIe1mbx P1scUIIdR6UyZgKnwlstDEOqftw0hfwYdw3zlFhhRK5BcgjgsHdFbGy3Eza19YdZ5h4S rA/Jx5V20caq4EJCJCCFQDCGshtkXS7s3NvZf2dX+2zFsFC3A3QA2dFjMNu0QjbfbR3b Ppqw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.146.46 with SMTP id sz14mr30255830obb.76.1344437947392; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.135.66 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [63.156.62.121]
In-Reply-To: <472BCA45-0462-45E0-BE89-339799915A9C@huawei.com>
References: <501B150C.9080304@raszuk.net> <CACKN6JFMxAiF63XPyUtGxE85iA1WpCe9S_y=yB684HA=57OsgQ@mail.gmail.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A81589DBDC@dfweml513-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CAG4d1rfKmEeTTuKAtuKzhHUwW47_1w1U4QfC=cffzUP01mJTEA@mail.gmail.com> <B36AC993-114B-42CB-B059-9FFC8F8A5CB6@huawei.com> <CAG4d1rcdV_m8VD=rCka6jK=y9yO7TvuNS=j0f0yxCUCvNQ5CfA@mail.gmail.com> <472BCA45-0462-45E0-BE89-339799915A9C@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:59:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHiKxWj+85AN5i+paZF59UissHg0cVES9K1os0LoBacm3nV7xw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdkRF0wwnbB6M2K2+c/cjpWNglfmPcegwtf7lSEOgLKVyLmFS6CB9arwmC7HT0qrlBxZGq
Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>, Edward Crabbe <edc@google.com>, "robert@raszuk.net" <robert@raszuk.net>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + 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: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:59:08 -0000

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>; wrote:
> So, r u updating Nitin's statement as following?
>
> Top layer: Northboundapi

#dmm: I propose we depricate the term "Northbound API".  It is pretty
much (if not completely)  meaningless.
>
> Middle layer: IRS
>
> Bottom layer: IRS (topo export)


>
>
> Tina
>
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 9:01 PM, "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> The requirement for topology export is DEFINITELY part of IRS.  It is
> a crucial piece for a meaningful feedback loop.   Clearly there are
> existing technology pieces that may have a role to play as well.
>
> Alia
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Oh, I meant in Nitin's description in the mailing list, there are 3
> sub-layers of a orchestrator.
>
> Top layer: Northboundapi
>
> Middle layer: IRS
>
> Bottom layer: topo export
>
>
> Therefore, the topo export is not part of IRS. It is another layer which
> sits below IRS.
>
>
> Tina
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:30 PM, "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>
> Topology export is definitely under the umbrella of IRS - and we are
>
> actively starting to think about the associated requirements and
>
> use-cases.   Feel free to contribute - on the list or towards drafts!
>
>
> Alia
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Nitin said topo information export is on the sub-layer under IRS.
>
>
>
>
> Tina
>
>
>
>
> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On
>
> Behalf Of Edward Crabbe
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:20 PM
>
> To: robert@raszuk.net
>
> Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
>
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
>
>
>
> If topo information export is in scope (which I believe it is) and PBR route
>
> injection with nh recursion to rib (and thus connected routes) is in scope
>
> (which I'm quite sure it is) then yes, this is in scope.
>
>
>
>
> Although I'm not sure what it has to do with OF /OF controllers? ;P
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> This morning Scott mentioned that he would like to use IRS to shut down all
>
> protocols and just be able to write to RIB. Now James said that he would
>
> like to get a network topology as "every OpenFlow controller requires this"
>
>
> Both connected together resulted in an idea of using multi-topology-routing
>
> where your base topology discovers physical link connectivity graph while
>
> other topologies could be programmed by external entities example: OF
>
> controllers or any other external to routers network intelligence oracles to
>
> deliver actual services ?
>
>
> Would that be in scope of IRS effort ? If so what would be the proposed
>
> "write to RIB" set of protocols ? Would you support OF 1.3 even if one would
>
> be happy to lock such topologies only to software/programmable switching
>
> paths ?
>
>
> Best rgs,
>
> R.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>