It is interesting to discuss whether we need a draft discussing some examples in the range and scope of architectures of network applications that might be using i2rs. I think we all come with different ideas of what might be sane/safe/needed - but want to leave lots of room for innovation in that ecosystem.
Alia On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok then I think we all agree on this. > > Thread closed. (That was incredibly quick :). > > Cheers, > R. > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> IMHO, the answer should be "we're not defining a model that works only >> centralized or distributed, but a just a model --use it any way you like." >> >> :-) >> >> Russ >> >> <>< >> [email protected] >> [email protected] >> >> On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think I am hearing quite clearly from most of the presentations that >>> there is sort of opinion that I2RS talks to RIBs from some form of >>> centralized controllers/route servers/topology collectors etc ... >>> >>> Does this mean that I can't use I2RS in completely distributed manner >>> without any central controller ? >>> >>> Note that more and more modern routers and switches gives customers >>> x86 local compute facilities on the box. So I can easily imagine that >>> I write a distributed application which communicates box to box at the >>> application level and installs locally via I2RS interface it's >>> "routes" to RIB. >>> >>> Is this model of operation out of scope of this WG ? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> R. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> i2rs mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
