Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> It is confusing to understand whether IRS belongs to a new network management plane or if it's more of a control plane extension. The draft wisely avoids this classification.
> To me IRS appears to be a completely different beast which should best be  characterized as 'Network Programming Plane' NPP.
> It neither aims to do full provisioning (as a management plane would do) nor aims to replace routing (as a control plane would do).

Alia's presentation has a diagram with a direct link between the IRS
Agent and the RIB Manager; thus it does seem to replace routing.

> Hence we better name the baby NPP -- thereby avoiding any linkage to taxation.

If none of my switching nodes speak any kind of legacy control plane
protocol, yet IRS remains stuffing 500,000 static routes into each
(thus programming the network), NPP only makes sense to me if it
subsumes the legacy control plane, not co-exists with it as I
understand your taxonomy.

-Scott

>
>
> Gert
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org <irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>
> To: Lenny Giuliano; Alia Atlas
> Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tue Jul 31 01:50:40 2012
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>
>
> [Re-adding IRS]
>
>         Thank you for reviewing and the comments. We will incorporate the edits
> in the next rev.
>
>         --Tom
>
>
> On 7/30/12 5:04 PM, "Lenny Giuliano" <lenny@juniper.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Minor points:
>>
>>-section 4, para 2, 3rd sentence, "Howeve,r"
>>
>>-4.1.3 "There is no bidirectional programmatic interface to add, modify,
>>    remove or read state from the multicast RIB."
>>       -How is this unique to mcast?  Couldn't you say the same thing
>>       about unicast?
>>
>>-4.1.3 "The multicast state added need not match to well-known protocol
>>    installed state.  For instance, traffic received on an specified set,
>>    or all, interfaces that is destined to a particular prefix from all
>>    sources or a particular prefix could be subject to the specified
>>    replication."
>>       -Not clear to me at all what this para is saying.
>>
>>-"IRS"- you may want to select a different acronym that isn't related to
>>something as unpopular as taxation (something we learned with AMT).
>>Maybe
>>RSI instead...
>>
>>Overall, I found the doc to be clearly written and straightforward.
>>Sounds like Openflow for routers.  Not sure if it's intentional that you
>>didn't mention Openflow, but it did seem like an elephant in the room as
>>I
>>was reading thru.  Also, I did wonder what was new and novel here, as
>>this
>>sounded like our SDK which has been around for years.
>>
>>
>>-Lenny
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
panem et circenses - a winning strategy for over 2000 years!