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

Alia,
It is just to clarification.
Just to confirm that draft-atlas and draft-ward state that IRS positions below the northboudapi in an orchestrator, and IRS includes both routing state and topo export. Is it correct understanding?
Thank you.

Tina

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:38 PM
> To: Tina TSOU
> Cc: Edward Crabbe; robert@raszuk.net; irs-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] An idea ... MTR + IRS
> 
> Tina,
> 
> Nitin made a single comment on this list that you are reading too much
> into.
> 
> I have written the two base drafts for IRS and am working on driving
> the definition of the work that is proposed.  The presentation that I
> gave in Routing Area Open Meeting CLEARLY describes topology as not
> only being in the proposed scope, but one of the more urgent items.
> 
> Why are you NOT listening?
> 
> Perhaps rereading the problem-statement and framework drafts would
> help clarify your mental model?
> 
> IRS does not talk about a northboundapi - there are applications that
> can use IRS.  How those applications communicate with other
> applications is NOT in the proposed scope.
> 
> Alia
> 
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Tina TSOU
> <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> wrote:
> > So, r u updating Nitin's statement as following?
> >
> > Top layer: Northboundapi
> >
> > 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
> >
> >