On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > > No, my question is how many I2Rs agents does a client need to contact to perform a task that requires changes on multiple routers? > Yours, > Joel > Andy > > 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:abdussalambaryun@**gmail.com<[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<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> >> >>
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
