I'd be interested in hearing others perspective on the use-cases requiring
multi-headed control and what you see this requirement as meaning. This is
a rather
different requirement, in terms of embedding the policy-enforcement into
the
routing system, from what is currently done for CLI/NetConf/SNMP. In those
cases,
the latest writing wins and installs its state. For i2rs, an idea proposed
(in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-atlas-irs-policy-framework) is that
different i2rs clients
are decided between based upon precedence.
Frequently, different services are "known" to not collide, based upon
human-assigned
policy - such as different prefixes for different traffic types, etc.
To get things started with a use-case, consider that there are two
different services
that are using i2rs.
a) Special Traffic Flow Routing: a service that installs policy-based
routing filters to
route specific traffic on predetermined paths.
b) DDoS Detection: a service that detects traffic of interest and
installs policy-based
routing filters to route the suspicious traffic to an analysis box.
In this case, the second service could have a higher precedence to override
the first service's
installed filters when necessary.
Any opinions?
Thanks,
Alia
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
