I think that the particular example you propose will onot help.
Some tunneling protocols only requrie action at one end to initiate a
bi-directional tunnel. I that case, presumably, the I2RS client would
only need to interact with that one end. Other protocols require action
/ configuration at both ends to establish a bi-directional tunnel. In
that case, the i2rs client would need to interact with both ends. (And
other protocols are even stranger.)
If your question is whether i2rs includes a protocol between i2rs agents
to coordinate action across boxes, separate from existing protocol
mechanisms, then I believe that the answer is a clear "no". There is is
agent-agent protocol in scope for the i2rs work.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/23/2013 11:59 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
Hi,
If an I2RS client wants to set up a tunnel between 2 routers
(as a lame example), does it send 1 request to 1 I2RS agent
or 2 requests, 1 to each I2RS agent/router? If 1 request, is the southbound
protocol between the I2RS agent and at least 1 router proprietary
or part of the standard?
I think this draft should be clear about what is in scope.
It seems to say that the southbound protocol is out of scope.
Andy
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I beleive if any thing not shown then they are not allowed by I2RS, if
it is shown then it is the way the I2RS will work to solve the
problem. So I will understand that I2RS client does not talk to NE but
only to the agent, that is why I suggest that we don't show any sign
that the client can talk to any other as long it is out of scope.
Therefore the drawing methodology (figure 1) is : (if out of scope of
the protocol then should not be shown, and if future work of protocol
it may be shown).
AB
On 6/22/13, Andy Bierman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just re-read the framework and problem statement drafts.
> Only 1 minor issue in the problem statement draft:
>
> The 'I2RS Agent' is shown as a single box in figure 1.
>
> 1) Does this mean the protocol between the "broker" and the
> NEs is proprietary, or just not shown?
>
> 2) Does this mean that an I2RS Client never talks directly to an NE
> or does it mean all I2RS Agent functionality is available on
all NEs?
>
> Nit, sec. 6, para 4:
> - the lack of standard data models is the problem of the
NETMOD WG,
> not really the NETCONF protocol.
> - s/may help define needed/may require help defining needed/
>
>
> Andy
>
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
