Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 01:32 UTC

Return-Path: <susan.hares@huawei.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 B03B421F8442 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.938
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ahp-0UFgh5Si for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA7521F8441 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIF35399; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:32:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:31:01 -0700
Received: from dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.12.123]) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:30:56 -0700
From: Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
Thread-Index: Ac1uf6vUr0RoAYPERve+GHr5XPQ6JgAIAMEAAA9c7IAAAHDOAAAAf0EAAAleJJA=
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:30:55 +0000
Message-ID: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623754A35@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net> <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAG4d1rdS8pa=2cQFhrrV2ZRqdp91Zwf_GVMcWA7xFNFf7Mgh5w@mail.gmail.com> <50170D34.503@joelhalpern.com> <ED65813C-777D-4DA3-AA37-D371A365AD16@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <ED65813C-777D-4DA3-AA37-D371A365AD16@lucidvision.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.245.101]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "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: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:32:56 -0000

Joel:

+1.  IRS requires many different things.  We can use netconf, netmod+yang, ForCES.

As my draft states, ForCES is likely to be equivalent or better than ONF. (OFS: [0.9][1.0][1.1][1.2]). See my detailed review, and the 2nd drafts recasting of ONF as ForCES LFB.

We need to look at the requirements of the routing system and your proposed multiple interfaces. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:54 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: Thomas Nadeau; James Kempf; irs-discuss@ietf.org; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted


On Jul 30, 2012:3:39 PM, at 3:39 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; 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 <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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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