Hi Jan, Sorry for being so long in replying - but to answer your questions finally...
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Jan Medved (jmedved) <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Alia, > > Thanks for starting the conversation :-) > > IMO, the lines between 'network-centric' and 'device-centric' are a > little blurred. For the sake of argument, let me agree with Joel that the > I2RS WG's scope should be limited to a single routing system. Let me ask a > few questions then: > > - Is an OSPF router or an IS-IS router a 'routing system', as defined > in the WG charter? If yes, would its LSDB be considered 'topology > information' as defined in the WG charter? And if the the answer to the > latter question is yes, would reading the LSDB information from the router > via a tbd. I2RS protocol be considered 'extraction of information > about topology from the network', as defined in the WG charter? > > Yes - absolutely - but the LSDP is not the only information that needs to be in an OSPF/ISIS IM. > > - Is a BGP Router Reflector a routing system, as defined in the WG > charter of the WG? If yes, would the LSDB information (potentially > collected from multiple IGP areas) in RR's BGP-RIB be considered 'topology > information' as defined in the WG charter? And if the the answer to > the latter question is yes, would reading the LSDB information from the RR > be considered 'extraction of information about topology from the > network', as defined in the WG charter? And if the BGP RR implements > BGP-LS, would extracting the LSDB information from the RR be in scope of > the WG? Could BGP-LS actually be considered a candidate for an I2RS > protocol that would be 'extracting information about topology from > the network'? > > Reading the topology info collected by BGP-LS would qualify. I am torn about having BGP-LS being considered an I2RS protocol. We certainly started I2RS with the idea of being inclusive of multiple protocols that could provide the desired functionality. Since then, I think that the WG has been more focused on a single protocol - though with the potential for "off-loading", such as requesting information but having it delivered via IPFIX or possibly a "log-file" via SCP. BGP-LS, of course, has some of the desired performance characteristics, but certainly isn't quite a data-model driven protocol. What I'd like to see in this space would be an IM for BGP-LS with a mapping to the data in BGP-LS. Then, one could either use I2RS to request the data and information stream or one could simply implement BGP-LS and listen. I say "simply" but I've been given to understand that implementing BGP, even as just a listener, is adding a non-trivial burden for network applications. Of course, how relevant that is for just getting something going or for a model with an I2RS broker is another question. Regards, Alia > Thanks, > Jan > > > From: Alia Atlas <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 6:23 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Subject: [i2rs] topology info model - what makes it a "network" model vs. > a "device" model > > I'd really like to start a conversation about the differences between a > topology IM model that is network-centric vs. device-centric. Clearly the > WG has strong and different opinions about it. > > Since many people are here in Vancouver, focused on IETF and not their > day-jobs, this seems like a good time to get it rolling... > > Alia > >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
