Hi Robert, Sorry for the delay and missing these on the first pass! I really appreciate that you took the time to do a careful and thoughtful review.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-01 > > I have few minor comments: > > 1. > Figure 1 sort of implies that I2RS client to I2RS Agent is always a > point to point session. Is this intentional or accidental ? I can > imagine bunch of I2RS clients feeding agends with pieces of required > information which only putted together makes sense - is this out of > scope as too complex ? Or is this what is called multi-headed control > ? > [Alia] I've certainly only pictured a point-to-point session. I don't expect that the I2RS agent would "put together pieces" but rather that the I2RS Clients can send atomic operations. Together that set might happen to make up a service, but that wouldn't be realized or dealt with by the I2RS agent. > If so It's definition is not that clear. Does "multi-headed" just > means number of independent clients feeding in async mode complete > information chunks or is that I2RS agent can collect pieces of info > for a given information and compiles the product itself. My question > is for the latter mode. > [Alia] I think it is the former > 2. > > In addition to interfaces to the RIB layer, > > Are we always talking about global RIB or also RIB on line cards on > distributed systems. While former is much easier the latter may help > with scalability issues. > [Alia] Hmm, in the problem-statement, I think it can be unspecified. In general, I think about the global RIB - but we do have in the RIB model the idea of different routing-instances which apply to only particular interfaces. So - depending upon a particular implementation - feeding routes into a routing-instance with interfaces on only a single card might help; I think that's going to be implementation specific, but the RIB model should be general enough. > 3. > Pls change [I-D.gredler-idr-ls-distribution]) to > draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution > [Alia] Absolutely - thanks for the catch! > 4. > > For applications to have a feedback loop that includes awareness of > > the relevant traffic, an application must be able to request the > > measurement and timely, scalable reporting of data." > > Frankly I am not sure if I like and support the idea of mixing control > plane and data plane reporting netflow like data on the same I2RS > channel/session. > > Not questioning the need .. just questioning the approach :) > [Alia] Ah - this is why I keep talking and writing about multiple transport channels. So - the control can be on one channel and the data-plane reporting can be on another agreed upon channel. IMHO, I want a way to ship data off the linecards without it having to travel up to a central point. > 5. > > While a few of these (e.g. link up/down) may be available via > > MIB Notifications today, the full range is not - nor is there the > > standardized ability to set up the router to trigger different > > actions upon an event’s occurrence so that a rapid reaction can be > > accomplished. > > So I2RS will also define a router's policy language which will allow > for setting via I2RS protocol conditional behavior upon specific > network events ? Will it ever ship complete ? Will it require RIB > redesign by some vendors which today may not have all opaque info > there ? > [Alia] Well, we may have to have a simple version first - but when there is a response that wants to happen in a quick fashion, I think that'd help. I haven't seen a lot of work on this idea - but I'm happier to have it in the problem-statement and then we can see. It's awsome goal and very attractive, but to me it means that this one > is a bit separate effort which make take much much longer to agreed in > IETF on then plain I2RS remote control idea. > [Alia] Yes. The idea was more connected when we had time-based operations. I do think that thinking about the simplest requirements and use-cases here would help. The problem-statement might be a bit aspirational for now... Thanks again, Alia > > Thx, > R. > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Edward Crabbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello all; > > > > Jeff and I would like to start the two week working group last call for > > draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement. The document may be found here: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-02 > > > > The editors and authors are advised to try to resolve as many of the > > comments as possible (on the mailing list) as they come in, but not to > > post the new version of the draft until the wglc is closed and the > > comments are resolved. > > > > This working group last call will end on Friday, 5/30/14 > > > > best, > > -ed > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
