Re: [Isis-wg] draft-amante-isis-reverse-metric-01

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shane,

Perhaps my last few mails could be read and interpreted in not intended 
way :)

I am not saying that we should add NMS to ISIS. And I am not saying that 
we should not simplify operation by not extending a routing protocol 
when such extension is obvious like in this draft.

In fact as we speak I am writing a new BGP draft where I use new 
community to configure some behaviour of protocol domain wide. Sure it 
could be achieved by consistent configuration, but there is no point to 
touch 500 routers if I can uniformly and much more easily achieve the 
same by single point config.

My comment were perhaps outside of ISIS WG as such .. I did hijacked the 
thread a bit to just hint the alternative approach to the same problem 
space. If we would solve the main issue neither you nor myself would 
need to extend the protocol and single action resulting in single point 
of config would still yield the required outcome.

That was my point. Above all I am always for simplifying network 
operation. The only question which still remains is to try to do it in 
the best way and most reusable way we can.

Best regards,
R.


> Robert, Bruno, (Jay),
>
> It is an explicit /non-goal/, even outside the context of this draft,
> to port an NMS system and/or configuration generation system *into*
> IS-IS.  Call me old-school, but a routing protocol, (particularly an
> IGP), should only distribute topology/reachability information, as
> fast as [is, safely] possible.  Asking that routing protocol to also
> push around counters (snmp over IS-IS<barf>), general-purpose
> configuration information (netconf over IS-IS<barf>), etc. is
> contrary to that goal for all the reasons that you're already
> familiar with.  :-)
>
> To be more clear, the scope of this draft is to make operation of an
> IS-IS network dramatically less error-prone by simplifying the
> handling of _a_ (notice the explicit use of the singular) very
> well-known, widely-used, routine maintenance procedure that occurs on
> networks day-in and day-out, the world over, _specifically_: p2p link
> /and/ multi-access LAN isolation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -shane
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2010, at 15:46 MST, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>> Hi Jay,
>>
>> Just one clarification ...
>>
>> What I and also Bruno pointed out was a bit more restrictive that
>> your interpretation :)
>>
>> While each node would be an equal class citizen in such ability to
>> configure the network or to set a parameter of a p2p or p2mp link
>> it does not mean that one would essentially need to enable such
>> ability on each node.
>>
>> Clearly also it would not be available to anyone. Only to the same
>> access level as today allowing for configuration.
>>
>> As to the topic of what protocol would fit such role I do agree
>> with your comment that we would probably need some form of hybrid.
>> The reliable domain wide flooding should be combined with
>> incremental updates ability.
>>
>> Volume wise I am not sure we are to have "huge volumes". Clearly
>> what differs this type of fundamentally different approach to NMS
>> that it is not targetted to be a carrier for SNMP pooling stats or
>> netflow records.
>>
>> Many thx, R.
>>
>>> wide config making each router to be an NMS station. Call it
>>> C-ISIS. Example: instead of configuring links on the adjacent
>>> nodes configure link parameter anywhere, instead of configuring
>>> node at a node .. configure it anywhere.
>>>
>>> Very interesting. Configure anywhere by anyone (maybe any
>>> computer) will be every powerful and very scaring too (security).
>>> A graph of network and transport of configure information will be
>>> needed. If protocol is proposed to do the job, should be a single
>>> protocol best fit? ISIS does know the topology of the network, on
>>> another hand BGP is better to transmit huge data and does
>>> incremental updates reliablely. A combination of functions from
>>> multiple protocol seems better than extending a single protocol.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>>>
>>> Many thx, R.
>>>
>>> PS.
>>>
>>> /* After all we have many uses for ISIS today ... TRILL included
>>> :) */
>>>
>>>
>>>> Robert,
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of working on network wide level config tool/protocol
>>>>> we are extending protocols to achieve the equivalent
>>>>> functionality. And this is not only in ISIS, we do the same
>>>>> in BGP, we do the same in MPLS etc ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you're suggesting that we stop work on improving protocols
>>>> until the NMS folks get their act together.
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't seem like a practical suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing
>>> list [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing
>> list [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>
>