Joel:
<wg draft author hat on>
The use cases have lots of virtual topologies, and I not received any
feedback on these use cases. It would useful for you to comment on which of
these use cases you do not feel is useful.
<wg draft author hat off>
<wg chair hat on>
Joel - it sounds like you are questioning the protocol independent topology
is appropriate for the charter of I2RS. Charter questions are appropriate
only during charter adoption. The charter has been adopted in March 2015.
If you felt you were not heard during this discussion, please send a note to
the chairs and copy the AD. The I2RS chairs need to discuss re-opening
charter issues with the I2RS AD (Alia Atlas).
The time to discuss the scope of the draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-top-01
draft aligning with the charter was during adoption. I do not perceive that
you are questioning whether this draft aligns with the charter.
<wg chair hat off>
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 5:06 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; Igor Bryskin; Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; [email protected]; Hariharan
Ananthakrishnan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jan Medved (jmedved)
Subject: Re: [i2rs] comments to draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-01
You may recall that I have expressed concern about many times about how the
network topology draft fits the I2RS scope. It is still not clear to me
that it is an I2RS item, although it is clearly useful for things talking to
the I2RS Agent.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/29/15 5:01 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Joel, Igor, Juergen,
Thanks for the feedback. Actually I always thought I2RS Agent is within a
single routing engine until reading the "I2RS Topology" draft.
I see draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-06 as a very clear and good
specification for information exchange between a routing engine and its
client. It reflects one single node's RIBs associated with multiple Routing
Instances supported by the routing engine.
But the "I2RS Topology", which is also a very good specification
describing the network view of topologies (which consists of multiple nodes
and links among them), is more suited for the entity that manages multiple
routing nodes.
RIBs of one routing engine and "topology of multiple routing engines"
definitely represent different perspectives: one is node view, another one
is the network view.
In order to make I2RS widely adopted by the industry, it is very important
not to make it too complicated. Routing is not simple to start with,
therefore, it becomes especially more important to keep I2RS specification
simple and to the point.
Therefore, I suggest to have a paragraph in the "network-topo" draft to
describe that this is for the network view, it is for clients who
manage/monitor multiple routing engines.
My two cents.
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 1:33 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern; Linda Dunbar; Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; [email protected];
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jan
Medved (jmedved)
Subject: RE: [i2rs] comments to draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-01
I agree with Joel,
To answer Linda's question: if I2RS agent manages/represnts multiple
physical devices, the interface between the agent and the devices is out of
scope of I2RS. Note that such interface needs to be standardized only if one
considers a scenario where an I2RS agent controls devices from different
vendors. IMHO this scenario is unlikely, and at least for now it is safe to
assume that said interface is private.
Cheers,
Igor
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 2:01 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; [email protected];
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jan
Medved (jmedved)
Subject: Re: [i2rs] comments to draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-01
Juergen is correct that by the I2RS definition an I2RS Agent is part of,
and associated with, a single routing element.
It is true that the routing element may itself be a controller supporting
and interacting with multiple forwarding elements. That is not required,
and not discussed, by I2RS. As far as I2RS is concerned, the multiplicity
is that the relationship between I2RS Clittns and I2rS agents is N:M. That
is, a client may be working with multiple agents,
and an agent may be communicating with multiple clients. But it is
still the case that the agent is collocated with the routing system, and
is not in a separate controller from the routing system.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/29/15 10:46 AM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Juergen,
One I2RS agent can interface with multiple routing elements.
The network view (which consists of multiple nodes, i.e. topology) has to
be over multiple nodes. Therefore, it is the interface between client and
Agent. Whereas, there are commands to individual routing element.
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 3:28 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: '[email protected]'; [email protected]; Jan Medved (jmedved);
[email protected]; [email protected]; Hariharan
Ananthakrishnan; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] comments to draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-01
Linda,
according to draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-09, an I2RS agent is part of a
routing element. I am not sure your understanding "I2RS Agent is like the
SDN controller" is consistent with the architecture document.
/js
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 05:03:25PM +0000, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Alex, et al,
The I2RS architecture depicts two types of interfaces:
- One is the interface between Agent and Client, and
- another is the interface between Agent and Routing entities.
The network model and inventory are more for the interface between Agent
and the Clients, isn't it? One single routing engine doesn't need to know
the overall topology and inventory information of other nodes, even though
some may do.
And the /nd:network/nd:node and Termination points are more for the
interface between the Agent and the Forwarding Engine, isn't it?
IMHO, the information models should be oriented around the I2RS
architecture. I.e. with description on where those information models are
applicable, making it easier to differentiate from other IETF WGs work (such
as L2VPN, L3VPN, or SFC). I recall there were some debates at the Dallas
I2RS session.
I2RS Agent is like the SDN controller, which can inform clients about
the topology information, instruct routes to routing engine of multiple
nodes, and retrieve link & termination points status from each of those
nodes.
The "Service Overlay" in Section 3.4.8 is definitely meant for clients
not towards individual nodes. Mixing them all together make it confusing.
Cheers,
Linda Dunbar
_______________________________________________
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
