Re: [irs-discuss] "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 17 August 2012 19:52 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 2ABA111E80E1 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.704, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rdyoV2nY160q for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A610811E80D1 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=96.237.177.132;
Received: from SKH2012HPLT (unverified [96.237.177.132]) by hickoryhill-consulting.com (SurgeMail 5.2a) with ESMTP id 3535893-1945496 for multiple; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:52:23 -0400
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: ggrammel@juniper.net
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:52:24 -0400
Message-ID: <001801cd7cb1$d29e7cb0$77db7610$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01CD7C90.4B8F4DB0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac18rgo0jCk8d1pIRXyyTa7sm/2qSg==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Cc: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@juniper.net>, irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
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, 17 Aug 2012 19:52:27 -0000
Gert: You've hit on many good points. a. +1 - You are right. NM has become a non-specific term. In history, ISO defined NM as specific features (configuration, fault, performance, and others). b. +1 - roll-forward/roll-back is what is necessary. IRS protocol, DB and policy must allow. c. Sorry - I see from your 2nd message that I misunderstood your point. Sue -------- Susan, Q1: Which NM are you implying here? A: traditionally a functional view on the subject has been used. Think about it. Does the fact that a piece of Software monitors a device justify to name it 'Network Management <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss/current/msg00151.html> '? Is CLI a Network Management? Q2: Configuration included download plus transactional (roll forward/roll-back). A: that's what's required to keep two persistent databases aligned. A3: Your description does not match the current status of the IGPs or BGP implementations. Q3: what let you to that conclusion? Those are CP protocols. Q4: Where do you place the Graceful-Restart <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss/current/msg00151.html> or Hitless Restart or High availability <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss/current/msg00151.html> work? Do you place this in a PCE or a stateful PCE? A4: IETF work is always placed between 2 or more entities because we deal with protocols.