Re: [irs-discuss] Thoughts on draft-ward-irs-framework

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 8B12F11E80BA for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 WVHXUQoRvI-H for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFFD11E809A for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so8888977yhq.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=h9dpP5/SJ41KDvz6nOQ3GLEibbAv1I1SY05gE/NjjpI=; b=v0VPQ39YYHaCrg5QZLhNI5iRjKYy6DQeIQXDOf5GFas96CmqIYieHopWZs9A4cwI9S VjvtMXEt5wQj6NQ4WJa+1wE62Tu9UVzl+jFZ1g99SYpCxMWZmXSDPyhxoyjvfqyEZq4/ t+/ClfyLpIfThvBA0S2J/XAKhFtLtR0qp5CiIX8y/V61INOXnVTb5BnliM9Eb4DCPSgz 10hQU5JOZZJUy2rNhWA575bQSGXEB+d6YONgYoNopO7Gvy/Y7Bh1nYqcuhwDLF4Q6mxx mE/GieYEkldi8FEWelRd0POR+x5CX8MhettK97vcPpuETzzgJRHxtn8ngTCahufly9f1 2VYA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.179.3 with SMTP id dc3mr1383239igc.18.1343885454986; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.34.169 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <501A0F6E.8010508@riw.us>
References: <50187B55.407@riw.us> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B1462375556A@dfweml509-mbs.china.huawei.com> <501A0F6E.8010508@riw.us>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:30:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcm3gH9Tt5MST0F3rrEA8GVRAyd6VGV7p7TS_vgN3+2og@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Russ White <russw@riw.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Susan Hares <susan.hares@huawei.com>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Thoughts on draft-ward-irs-framework
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 05:30:56 -0000

K - so the idea of the IRS sub-interface to the RIB being semantically
similar to another routing process sounds like an initially useful way
of describing it - but we're going to want to qualify out what that
means in terms of interactions and into the appropriate description &
models.

Alia

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Russ White <russw@riw.us>; wrote:
>
>> ----> [Russ]: +1 - This Offboard controller processing aligns with the ONF view of SDN.  And it has been done in practice for 10+ years. However as you know, the timing between the calculation and download to HW is important.
>
> If we just insert the information into "yet another process" parallel
> with the already existing routing processes on the hardware, I think we
> shunt aside the problems with insertion speed, etc. Routes installed in
> this "off board interface routing process" would be handled just like
> routes learned through other sources. Any improvements in the speed of
> route insertion from, say, OSPF running on the box would be reflected in
> speed improvements for IRS. IMHO, this is a huge win overall.
>
>> One
>> difference, though, is the idea that different static routes installed
>> by IRS may want to have different preference values.
>
> All the implementations I've worked with have the ability to install
> routes from a single process with different preferences. If no
> preference is specifically stated, the process' preference is used.
> Specific per route preferences override these, though --see, for
> instance, the EIGRP distance command in IOS. I suspect all
> implementations have the ability to handle this sort of thing in the API
> between each routing process and the RIB, but it's just not used a lot.
>
> :-)
>
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss