I think you are mixing two things together, that I see as independent. > But do you need to have a RFC which mandates support of BGP-TE spec by an > ALTO server ? > How about ALTO vendors which not have BGP code at all today ?
There is a ALTO client-to-server protocol spec. There is a ALTO server-to-network protocol spec. They should be independently specified, and can be independently implemented. If you want to build a ALTO server that follows only the client-to-server protocol spec, go ahead. There is probably a market for a product like this. This shouldn't be prohibited. I think there are a number of parties that want an ALTO server that would follow specifications for both client-to-server and server-to-network protocols. > I could really easily imagine an ALTO vendor which does not support BGP and > collects network information (both routing and non-routing related) via their > own self discovering application modules running on all or on subset of > routers of given network. So in other words, I need to deploy "application modules" on my routers for your approach to work. And if your application modules didn't run on my routers, I have to replace my routers to enable ALTO support in my network. Hmmm. > And on the other hand if you want to choose a particular deployment model you can select ALTO server vendor which does support BGP-TE RFC XYZ. Yes we could. The question is what needs to be carried in BGP-TE to be useful to ALTO servers. That's where the interoperability concerns arise, and where an open specification is needed. -- Rich -----Original Message----- From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 11:08 AM To: Woundy, Richard Cc: Benjamin Niven-Jenkins; Jan Medved; [email protected] Subject: Re: [alto] Do we need to standardise an ALTO Server to Network API? Hi Richard, > My secondary motivation is to ensure that, with respect to automated > population of network information into ALTO servers, I could choose > ALTO server vendors and router vendors fairly independently. But do you need to have a RFC which mandates support of BGP-TE spec by an ALTO server ? How about ALTO vendors which not have BGP code at all today ? Are they out of luck to even propose ALTO servers ? I could really easily imagine an ALTO vendor which does not support BGP and collects network information (both routing and non-routing related) via their own self discovering application modules running on all or on subset of routers of given network. Result: no need to configure and maintain dozens if not more of BGP sessions both on the ALTO server as well as on the routers, no need to support BGP or IGP on ALTO server side. And on the other hand if you want to choose a particular deployment model you can select ALTO server vendor which does support BGP-TE RFC XYZ. Just like today when you are buying routers or other network devices you just make sure they speak the same language as described in the protocol RFC XYZ. No need for another API spec to mandate support of RFC XYZ. Cheers, R. _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
