Hiya, On 01/09/2013 10:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Stephen wrote > >> None of these are blocking for me, but I'd appreciate answers, >> especially to the first. >> >> - I'm confused about the single ADMD thing - how does that >> square with mitigating DoS? I'd have thought that many DDoS >> mitigations might require co-operation between at least two >> domains. A solution that fits this charter might be too >> limited to be useful. > > Agree, but let's not boil the ocean on day one. > Just because a solution is only applicable in a single domain does not > preclude > extending it in the future. > In fact, the control structure in I2RS is an application talking to 1 or more > I2RS clients talking to one or more I2RS agents. The limitation in the charter > basically precludes the I2RS client being in a different admin domain from the > I2RS agent - going there would make for interesting trust and security > relationships. Architecturally, there is nothing to preclude an application > talking to I2RS clients in different admin domains, or an application talking > to > another application in another domain - however, these interactions do not > form > part of the work of the WG and so do not need to be in scope.
Fair enough. I guess I don't know myself how this might fit with DDoS mitigation (nor do I know much about DDoS mitigation as it happens;-) but if the scope allows the kind of discussion above then that seems fine. >> - I'm confused about why this WG is needed - is there a real >> prospect of not picking openflow for this or are we talking >> about some other API? > > Many questions arise: > 1. What makes you so sure that anyone would pick OpenFlow? I'm not sure of anything. I was asking. I'll take your answer as being "yes, there is":-) And that's an ok answer as far as I'm concerned. > 2. Don't you consider NetFlow (which is how I read your question > first time!), ForCES, or any other IETF protocol might not be a > real candidate? > 3. If OpenFlow was picked where would the work to model IP > routers be best carried out (this is NOT the forwarding plane > that is being modelled)? > 4. If IETF protocol X was picked would the work be in this WG or > an existing WG? > 5. Where do we do the work on requirements and (abstract) > information models? > >> - Shouldn't this recognise the SDN term/fad somehow so that >> buzzword compliant people end up on the right mailing list? > > I've never heard the term "SDN" before. Could you clearly and concisely > explain > it to me? Sure. Its a recent buzz-acronym. :-) > Actually, I think that the term "SDN" is so last year. Quite possibly, I2RS > fits > into part of the SDN problem space. Quite possibly, calling it SDN just > derails > everyone into thinking this is a shiny thing and not something that people > really want to build and deploy in IP networks. > >> - What's the relationship between this and the putative SDNRG >> in the IRTF? Has that been discussed with e.g. Lars? > > AFAIK, IETF WGs produce protocol specs for stuff people want to build and > deploy > soon. The valuable work done by the IRTF RGs investigates longer-term > research-based issues. > > The usual suspects (e.g. Dave Meyer who has been chairing the SDNRG work) are > on > the I2RS list and are (I think) supportive. Lars, of course, sees all > proposals > for new WGs and can comment. Yep. That all seems good. >> - A nit: "A routing system is all or part of a routing >> network. A part of a routing network may be a single router >> or a collection of routers" reads oddly to me. Are you >> including non-routing hosts or not? What about switches? >> What about the wires? > > Oh, gods, how we thrashed on this text! And we're not done yet. My sympathies. Hard thing to get right. Cheers, S. > Yes, I believe we are excluding non-routing hosts as they have no routing > components that we can influence. > We are definitely excluding switches - they do not route. > AFAIK wires cannot be configured (I might be wrong on this, I don't keep > up-to-date with my Physics). Anyway, they don't play a part in the routing > system, although the interfaces that may be on the end of wires or groups of > wires do play a part. > > Others may like to comment. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
