Re: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward

"Jan Medved (jmedved)" <jmedved@cisco.com> Fri, 03 August 2012 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jmedved@cisco.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 DCFB311E80B8 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 pFXVk9QqNDPU for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB4A11E809C for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 22:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmedved@cisco.com; l=1946; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343972031; x=1345181631; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=YVFSK8zcogvz2r7wzpJlfvKNpg4QL/WwmfBWthbz8NQ=; b=b7/FR6Yca26ejenci5QZxi3mkBN7IY1RuhM6W8i/X2d0jq3GGj/Lk5K5 1UaDQIw9Tp8stOIqP0Dv3cFYpmchIDWLwYq/4wEqpgQ4QJQBmQYWLIrL6 TR4LuzE9JT7MMLnP8ckk9TczDeGYnlrp0V5dD1mlt1LJY2kFNHRKZK/fs k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAL5hG1CtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABFuSaBB4IgAQEBAwESAScyCgMSAQgOCh5CJQEBBAENBSKFb4F2Bp0QoDaSSwOVSI4ngWaCX4Ff
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,705,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="108096833"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2012 05:33:50 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q735XoSw006026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Aug 2012 05:33:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.159]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:33:49 -0500
From: "Jan Medved (jmedved)" <jmedved@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, "robert@raszuk.net" <robert@raszuk.net>
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward
Thread-Index: Ac1w/aRFxquJYy0LSJCFfpb4MILlegAKtm6AAAIJPoAAAHJKAP//7L0A
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:33:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CC40A3A1.79CD8%jmedved@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC405E65.2E0F%tnadeau@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.27.7.163]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19082.002
x-tm-as-result: No--28.978300-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F78C2D0BAF350E44A91BF08C1F47639E@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Suggestions for IRS Way Forward
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: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:33:52 -0000

Tom,

On 8/2/12 4:42 PM, "Thomas Nadeau" <tnadeau@juniper.net> wrote:

>
>
>On 8/2/12 4:29 PM, "Robert Raszuk" <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>>Tom,
>>
>> > I agree that one of the top work items for this effort should be a
>> > standardized topology function, and one that is accessible via a
>> > non-routing protocol.
>>
>>So if the requirement is to have topology export via non-routing
>>protocol then I think we should seriously revisit or repackage the
>>draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-01 which works for for both OSPF and
>>ISIS.
>
>	Cool.
>
>
>>However before that let's really understand the requirement why it must
>>be exported via non-routing protocol .... Keep in mind that just to
>>parse BGP UPDATE messages and retrieve interesting pieces out it it
>>requires very little code rather then full BGP implementation.

Agreed.

>
>	That seemed to be one of the agreements that came out of the session
>today.

Can you give more background?

I don't think it's as straightforward. BGP-LS implements a network-wide
model (data schema), while the scope of IRS is a single node (IMO as it
should be). A node's local IGP and BGP databases do not provide the view
of the entire network topology. To get the whole topology, multiple
routers need to be queried, and the topology needs to be 'stitched'
together. This can either be done in an external node (an ALTO Server, for
example), or in a router.

If the 'stitching' is done in an external server, would it mean that the
scope of IRS is extended to entities other than routers?

If the 'stitching' is done at a router, then the router would have to
collect the topology data from other routers - using BGP-LS, for example
;-) The topology export would then basically have to provide access to the
BGP-LS database through some adaptation function. I wonder what's the gain
in this case...
 
>
>	--Tom
>

Thanks,
Jan

>
>>