...@yumaworks.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, July 18, 2015 9:55 PM
*To:* Linda Dunbar
*Cc:* i2rs@ietf.org; Susan Hares; jh...@juniper.net
*Subject:* Re: [i2rs] multi-headed control of I2RS agent v.s.
i2rs-Ephemeral-state
Hi,
very interesting comments...
I agree these are requirements that could apply to more than
Thanks Joel and Andy for the clarification.
See my additional comments inserted below:
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 9:55 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Susan Hares; jh...@juniper.net
Subject: Re: [i2rs] multi-headed control of I2RS agent
Thanks Andy. I had missed that line in Linda's email.
I agree with Andy. As I understand the WG agreements, ephemeral state
has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a connection to the
I2RS client which provided the state. The ephemeral aspect is strictly
about whether the state
AM
To: 'Joel M. Halpern'; Songhaibin (A); 'KwangKoog Lee'
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Guanxiaoran
Subject: RE: [i2rs] Multi-Headed Control
Mach, Haibin, and KwanKooq:
Joel gave you brief answers and then suggested reading the document. As
one of the co-authors, I will attempt to give the longer
AM
To: 'Joel M. Halpern'; Songhaibin (A); 'KwangKoog Lee'
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Guanxiaoran
Subject: RE: [i2rs] Multi-Headed Control
Mach, Haibin, and KwanKooq:
Joel gave you brief answers and then suggested reading the document. As
one of the co-authors, I will attempt to give the longer answers
I do not fully understand the data model of i2rs. But in case that many
clients interact forwarding devices with the i2rs-enabled control plane,
various policies about routing, signaling, qos and etc. from multiple
clients or multiple upper users (network applications) can be set to those
devices
While I will try to paraphrase things to answer your question, I
recommend you read the archtiecture draft to get more details.
The assumption is that normally different I2RS clients will be asking
the agent to perform operations which change different pieces of data.
We discussed various
@ietf.org; Guanxiaoran
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Multi-Headed Control
While I will try to paraphrase things to answer your question, I recommend you
read the archtiecture draft to get more details.
The assumption is that normally different I2RS clients will be asking the
agent to
perform operations
@ietf.org; Guanxiaoran
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Multi-Headed Control
While I will try to paraphrase things to answer your question, I recommend you
read the archtiecture draft to get more details.
The assumption is that normally different I2RS clients will be asking the agent
to
perform operations which
Hi Joel,
It is a little confusing for me. See inline.
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:43 PM
To: KwangKoog Lee
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Guanxiaoran
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Multi-Headed Control
: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:29 AM
To: Mach Chen; KwangKoog Lee
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Guanxiaoran
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Multi-Headed Control
The unit of data for collisions is to be specified as part of the
relevant information models. Trying to define that architecturally seemed
counter
confusing for me. See inline.
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:43 PM
To: KwangKoog Lee
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Guanxiaoran
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Multi-Headed Control
While I will try to paraphrase
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke jcla...@cisco.comwrote:
On 1/23/13 5:04 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing others perspective on the use-cases
requiring
multi-headed control and what you see this requirement as meaning. This
is a rather
different
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke jcla...@cisco.comwrote:
On 1/23/13 7:08 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke jcla...@cisco.com
mailto:jcla...@cisco.com wrote:
On 1/23/13 5:04 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
I'd be interested in
On 1/23/13 7:19 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
Yes, I wasn't considering it overlap - just like two routes in the RIB
aren't
overlapping if they're not the same prefix.
Got you. So maybe the use case should make it clear that the DDoS
Service has already deemed a problem is seen (via some
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke jcla...@cisco.comwrote:
On 1/23/13 7:19 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
Yes, I wasn't considering it overlap - just like two routes in the RIB
aren't
overlapping if they're not the same prefix.
Got you. So maybe the use case should make it clear
16 matches
Mail list logo
