From hadi@mojatatu.com Sun Aug 12 08:23:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC3121F8565 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:23:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.861 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pbhaVuuNY8Xh for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC4621F854E for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so6434167obb.31 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=3ND5Djw8fPDV1IPe66j7W8NHLMbVAj7ub1RpAEc9RJo=; b=bDrdbVUL6mBb1Ej+23VC8+D3GOlG7EL86mK4wpX5ra/K77IVxS2m4oeEBVMsIGqI32 VB1qMalf/QQX4uWyzZIbCxWfZD0XJxDBG9lMFQYor8MMziVYvwuiLpKsnJk9EGnYICXP f5xXA11lZ7MDi/9wX7NK62vmNqt8ksIThQdqkvD+6Opr9N2rSSeHgqBbfUDZI3EsjXSd f6ACN6qMD3Y2lu9Md/HP5d6Kdt4c91kprB0euHxG80TXntwR5BfzqBcAHTAKHuYN2k5+ jZnrev3brKDs8Q0LJYAjnobhC9k3sCEm5CuWVnv5jdD58P4OAEbcyeOzbh1akBF0VVBV gwMA== Received: by 10.60.20.74 with SMTP id l10mr13850683oee.19.1344785000531; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.45.5 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:23:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:23:00 -0400 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGl5YZCXsRE+XlIH25ay6Wif/gkixdDIRi7TD6dDVg4eKgUoZNbv97BSSLWJyUFDaaeyMS Subject: [forces] IETF 84 minutes posted X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:23:21 -0000 Folks, I have uploaded draft minutes from the meeting. Please review and send any corrections. Much thanks to Spyros Denazis for taking the minutes. cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Sun Aug 12 08:45:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA9921F84FE for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:45:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.865 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8wDApgIqYAg9 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438F221F84FD for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so6461953obb.31 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:45:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=ll8EWX+/KqDIBkfgoWEaLMEeyATeGCa6Kv9gWMcFZJM=; b=WubaGKg/av17b2FN601cccS/IFzjaXG9UEnKPl5cc/CDEnkARHCfCSSIbbn9Ejlp80 ZDDRWWngAqPkjlCZVwSv/B+Vo9c93oLBhDtnblxkAnt/gOpTk+tUVKrG40p/yJq3JR1d CNT7MUpOhXJ9zAfvKwIIiEsc3LazAbcXmJJ1WvPsnKT1rYL+S0j0b5xJdqZORN1ZiUSa uBBVpVDntyJw3HDEpslp6rmAiNNE36PniiU8JBdfbFwiCzB1PbbtjRBB/QmmrXmq2Yon nQi3QjNQZk9YwuLyXdOtBeRCf0rGF7F7wo7pjG6dI9GjftJEHw3rVR9Dw9YusRgpEhh8 5S6w== Received: by 10.182.159.42 with SMTP id wz10mr7038902obb.49.1344786316795; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:45:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.45.5 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:44:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:44:56 -0400 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQluU4m6ZHJhmfedVp+h+PNDIAPRm0JctTvLETBGN0torcIU07lISyVWh2zJJ6VQD/l7GWBc Subject: [forces] opening those gates X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:45:18 -0000 Me again. Over the last two years Adrian (our esteemed AD) and I had been trying to wind down the WG. I have intentionally restricted discussions, drafts or presentations (there were many over the years) which are outside the charter and tried to focus only on the two main drafts: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib and draft-ietf-forces-ceha Those drafts have been beaten to pulp so far; we are moving towards publication. The WG has some new kick given the SDN interest (yes, weve been preaching SDN for a long time now). This is evidenced by attendance in the meeting in Paris which was quiet large (and the Vancouver meeting was larger than normal despite conflicts with pwe3 and alto which would have brought more people to the meeting). So the new view is to keep the working group open longer if it is deemed necessary. The technique for probing interest is to open up the gates ive been guarding. So if you have new ideas, _as long as they centre around ForCES_, please bring them forth. If you are upset at me for holding you back before, I apologize; you can have fun now. Please post discussions, write drafts (make them individual drafts not WG group drafts) and ask for presentation slots. Some of the ideas which have been held back off the top of my head: - SCTP TML/TLS - newer TMLs - CECE plane - Inter LFB (as in LFBs across FEs in service chaining) - etc. Some newer ideas: - ForCES on the northbound SDN interfaces cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Sun Aug 12 09:01:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE97021F8473 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TwOtznHbX0lW for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABE821F847A for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so6481131obb.31 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:00:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=+hZoGWk2XJEWYxIj85Q6sDhNL8NXTFhkaS85gRkXrbY=; b=Vs5jofu526F0W1opEXB6D+M6I6Mrlbs5l2ICRniXndMWEpOxhBMigFhtueCu8rK2IF aGblkbcpXkxUqyaWtSHinq5LfjoWZdgfpMRLSz+kkYXEfBRT96u6SW/sjdjEAX5iwx97 XXrvOK/JAI1Ws56xrizLS0FVVcMJAMFtAdTN9QZPGMAGcRDBainLgcACg2Tv8kSbp75/ VNDJteTd9PMPEuoT4PtAjEf3mLF8OU0dERmT+U198ZOj3K8tdumkk/p/qa+QvFPOefFm 5Esw+NnbMcfTocjIwKD87gLSDzBPNqFasOY4kjml/EHbKX6lmh30NIdCXx1t/YHE52Uv MJ+Q== Received: by 10.60.12.234 with SMTP id b10mr13466653oec.72.1344787256403; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:00:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.45.5 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:00:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:00:36 -0400 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkukI6HK0Ofq8ewdzgVuzXqpDXNDnD/iH3GEFKf+Q10am6WJ/Hxj0UbnPgL7kKRvq9/+h8K Cc: Susan.Hares@huawei.com Subject: [forces] On the OF ForCES comparison X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:01:10 -0000 Me again. I share the same thinking expressed in Sue's presentation at the meeting. It does seem like ONF/OF is re-inventing a lot of the ideas that ForCES has matured over the years. Remember there were at least 4 variants of things that claimed to be ForCES that influenced the current architecture and model; so weve taken care of a lot of use cases over the years. I am also aware of at least one issue that some OF experts have expressed in private that ForCES cant do (in regards to modelling parallel LFB flow where you have a single packet being processed in parallel by multiple LFB instances). There may be more. The OF LFBs draft from Evangelos and company demonstrate it is possible to model OF using the ForCES language. Is there a way we can extend an olive branch to the ONF folks to have them use ForCES and given the new approach of allowing new work in, accommodate any new features they are missing? cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Sun Aug 12 09:02:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9EA21F85E0 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.873 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.873 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id evfgNeMLqWxO for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B33A21F85DD for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id wc20so6483130obb.31 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=LDJeVLGzb+cL6cGHqQ1MYyeiV0GVQlicfvc36tJWpGM=; b=Liwlm+ZbEcjVp5oBip1RTxBpkAer4SuxMZRjBHlJlU8J9y5h0HN3XznJ9XQRfP5iam dQRMA9SHfwKDrrxOL5G5aK+1PFX7Y6Su4Es20LVQmU7RfCLUMhbJxkc/izs0Ed05zLZW dEdWnnW6dCgKwDbW8X4XhJuVEADhaoiql8ZUfsVdYNq9QF9eqe7H/8wxR43+k+YLqATe o7gbIx4e9usHSMHmV0u1v26pikD6i+g5Qgp3y6DHIdRS3Z+8mUj2cB3zqo9r1zo2G5a7 zzCzXSTX4B/bt7Kfy7GwFS/JFyApOdfbdd6OFTyG3A7pPdY/AFsZzjm1WbnPMJ+rboWm jdUA== Received: by 10.182.86.225 with SMTP id s1mr7016399obz.73.1344787375008; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.45.5 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:02:34 -0400 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnlq9lDhNyq0Jpv+uZge4AOffyCxacfGAge94VaYsGUP7ek0S4X14HD7HZDqo+IPzn4bQNo Cc: Susan.Hares@huawei.com Subject: Re: [forces] On the OF ForCES comparison X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:02:56 -0000 On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Me again. > > I share the same thinking expressed in Sue's presentation at the meeting. > It does seem like ONF/OF is re-inventing a lot of the ideas that ForCES has > matured over the years. Remember there were at least 4 variants of things > that claimed to be ForCES that influenced the current architecture and model; > so weve taken care of a lot of use cases over the years. > > I am also aware of at least one issue that some OF experts have expressed > in private that ForCES cant do (in regards to modelling parallel LFB flow > where you have a single packet being processed in parallel by multiple > LFB instances). There may be more. > > The OF LFBs draft from Evangelos and company demonstrate it is possible to > model OF using the ForCES language. > > Is there a way we can extend an olive branch to the ONF folks to have > them use ForCES and given the new approach of allowing new work in, > accommodate any new features they are missing? Meant "Any new feature they feel we are missing" cheers, jamal From susan.hares@huawei.com Tue Aug 21 06:31:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAD021F8643 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:31:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A0UDS+x1ij1I for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6CA21F8634 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfwdlp01-ep.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AJR17889; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 05:31:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:26:57 -0700 Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.11]) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:26:54 -0700 From: Susan Hares To: Jamal Hadi Salim , "forces@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: On the OF ForCES comparison Thread-Index: AQHNeKO9R3oLP1md10WB3j1xGTlxRZdjoo7w Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:26:53 +0000 Message-ID: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623767EA9@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.212.245.100] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:45:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [forces] On the OF ForCES comparison X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:31:58 -0000 Jamal: I have a more basic question.=20 What's wrong with my draft? =20 I heard that people wanted to give me comments on the draft, but I've waite= d Can I do a call to have it adopted as a working group draft?=20 Sue=20 -----Original Message----- From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi@mojatatu.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 9:01 AM To: forces@ietf.org Cc: Susan Hares Subject: On the OF ForCES comparison Me again. I share the same thinking expressed in Sue's presentation at the meeting. It does seem like ONF/OF is re-inventing a lot of the ideas that ForCES ha= s matured over the years. Remember there were at least 4 variants of things that claimed to be ForCES that influenced the current architecture and mode= l; so weve taken care of a lot of use cases over the years. I am also aware of at least one issue that some OF experts have expressed in private that ForCES cant do (in regards to modelling parallel LFB flow where you have a single packet being processed in parallel by multiple LFB instances). There may be more. The OF LFBs draft from Evangelos and company demonstrate it is possible to model OF using the ForCES language. Is there a way we can extend an olive branch to the ONF folks to have them use ForCES and given the new approach of allowing new work in, accommodate any new features they are missing? cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Tue Aug 21 16:58:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098D511E8091 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:58:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9pPGkgptXXJ2 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F9811E808D for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so517255obb.31 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:58:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=g2dwFOSVOqqUJq/zb8gQKOv98t3eB2ok9n014srol/s=; b=pv3NF8alqlgdII8I9eApORGM69U8agvMd7i3xaMTRkll0prnDE5030aRKZvy2n9sIZ zQsYZg4zitUs6bQGpPiwlOGy+DxQLNli4Hdd/Pgf6eyq4f00TDo22XH+F5Nwam3Pkiz8 MQjnrfFtalhXBnyh5cIBzAOLD5rGmvZd3vVtzXm4Q1wSeIL8d676+eBtFbAIXaYwPHci U11FDx10C7mEXduXlDU9AjD8gdBuriqosLdY84oi1c7C0xIyBqf4ZYMZL1h0Nh5K8uCs VP6VkulRkQ2U3VtJ4yISn+wvxtxR1xAVBuTdbb0m9VNE7mSSEveGIrDIU3OfSmSlh/hi lw/w== Received: by 10.182.169.37 with SMTP id ab5mr14146987obc.82.1345593502471; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:58:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.79.194 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:58:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623767EA9@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B14623767EA9@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:58:02 -0400 Message-ID: To: Susan Hares Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn4cZbcprAKN8ehf3S83PjOwcGtlDT8Ln/kL3CVhKqmyx93QyaniFxQIQJbGr0c6zdZaoOe Cc: "forces@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [forces] On the OF ForCES comparison X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:58:26 -0000 Hi Sue, On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > Jamal: > > I have a more basic question. > > What's wrong with my draft? Nothing [I have comments which i will send you privately when i get to type them in; and the general feedback in the meeting was some beefing is needed.] > I heard that people wanted to give me comments on the draft, but I've waited Can I do a call to have it adopted >as a working group draft? At the moment it is outside the scope of the charter. If we can generate enough interest for OF kind of activites, it is possible to make it a WG doc. Can we get some of the ONF folks offended enough to show up here at least to comment? cheers, jamal From bortzmeyer@nic.fr Fri Aug 24 09:12:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98DFE21F86B2; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.446 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kkIOPkkKdZnz; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53B921F8686; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:12:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 4D8F63BDD2; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:12:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by tyrion (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1A199F0066A; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:05:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:05:40 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: forces@ietf.org Message-ID: <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 12.04 (precise) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: tnadeau@juniper.net, irs-discuss@ietf.org, akatlas@juniper.net, wardd@cisco.com Subject: Re: [forces] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:12:20 -0000 On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 05:45:29PM -0700, IETF Secretariat wrote a message of 34 lines which said: > A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. > > List address: irs-discuss@ietf.org > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss/ > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss It really looks like very close from what the Forces working group have been doing. Can anyone explain why we need to start a new project? From bensons@queuefull.net Fri Aug 24 09:24:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00EA21F8681 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.704 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0grG3yNM8yVO for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EB521F8683 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so3676890pbb.31 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=pr0Aa+VVhR2Uo9/bkCQIrmDgmLoDS9I+14wAmvdADBQ=; b=Nk1sW5xpy13Il8Vnn7KZOyFfQY4ld8AiBP6mY2iihECtY4pWGjjRYwqQyARElJamEL 8K+a+NIUGOIv2umq91LkFKIHSdmq5feVk6REPgBtArQu1MKAlBDXAnbXWSi585DIvCAX +EIN6heHiY35OYSm4EBfmtK7PzUbQYGEdLDe4pc3Jlruzz+ErC/lVSjLlt5DVI655wZb dsDWbts49XR+fFBg7Lug/KZI3/4oD5W3HX/XM0CVocrXRG40KHG9TA7rDncdHrGzwzWv EeIAHZNZJBA+fMTFB4sCEtN3a8efjSytnXpcL0oo1Nzo2K5MCuSVzfRDRwMMiImSPZq3 5/og== Received: by 10.68.238.74 with SMTP id vi10mr14085439pbc.48.1345825455075; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wasteland.local (natint3.juniper.net. [66.129.224.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gf3sm8573158pbc.74.2012.08.24.09.24.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:24:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:24:12 -0500 From: Benson Schliesser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> In-Reply-To: <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmEnwExiYxMVziwaGcB3Si5x+QUmyOyBH2uwpxtutRiazZq0e7DVeKKlP3iaNedyS4g6z0k Cc: tnadeau@juniper.net, wardd@cisco.com, forces@ietf.org, akatlas@juniper.net, irs-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:24:15 -0000 Hi, Stephane. On 8/24/12 11:05 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. >> >> List address: irs-discuss@ietf.org >> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss/ >> To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss > It really looks like very close from what the Forces working group > have been doing. Can anyone explain why we need to start a new > project? At a high level, I think there is a different assumption about where the control-plane resides. In IRS the forwarding and control planes might be co-resident in the router (i.e. not "separated"), and the IRS protocol would be a way of extending limited control over routing state to external applications. If I understand ForCES correctly (which is possibly not the case) then I imagine it could be used in a similar architecture and/or as a protocol layer for IRS. But the first step in the context of IRS is to make a problem statement, understand requirements, etc. Others might have more intelligent comments, which I welcome. :) But please let me know if this perspective helps clarify things, and/or if I'm missing some ideas that I should understand better, etc. Cheers, -Benson From hadi@mojatatu.com Mon Aug 27 04:23:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB8F21F8581 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:23:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.885 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dJaSk+G90EOM for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B82221F861C for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so8985568obb.31 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:23:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=xuVV5HOF2w+ayaGmOHkl2f5EkwdlMcDp+23or+dRaZc=; b=iEI8CDXRZoYdvUNoOkPRNsDlPOnIMuI+tgMu2sAYKN/PVbILuINo7yni/vVNzAHz8B sKZEXPyYzW6nVj5mLvzHWO8unZwIn4yWbwcPkniiOGJTNEQlDD5BhS51CGS0CgsL3gwy S+7WqEhVVTKmqvluG9tzPqMdIf4tXrblEFFFZ5762Q1fZySCd2G669saAEcMG9HsIw3/ zLQ1AKCEaFYN1soMrCVy1MJE7DTk5G7n9kWamBEW1e/W4bssV2BKvoRMHjHiD2nYEKUw xcpzMdLG1s861Srl6UU18DTZ329UemlqHaO03KyRj4P4OeyygoIfm5AZ4PL5ZE0JNCA3 6KNA== Received: by 10.182.52.42 with SMTP id q10mr9772846obo.46.1346066625732; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:23:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.97.71 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:23:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:23:25 -0400 Message-ID: To: Benson Schliesser Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxeAUsySJjIQlxJrz83K/DY1sVm4kC0RAcRTK12+tstCDRjyycyb6TXOD/H8pvUKTghou3 Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org, tnadeau@juniper.net, akatlas@juniper.net, wardd@cisco.com, forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:23:46 -0000 On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > At a high level, I think there is a different assumption about where the > control-plane resides. Clarification on the generic statement above below. >In IRS the forwarding and control planes might be > co-resident in the router (i.e. not "separated"), and the IRS protocol would > be a way of extending limited control over routing state to external > applications. > > If I understand ForCES correctly (which is possibly not the case) then I > imagine it could be used in a similar architecture and/or as a protocol > layer for IRS. But the first step in the context of IRS is to make a problem > statement, understand requirements, etc. > Indeed. Once clarity sets in on the requirements, ForCES may or may not be a good choice. Where i feel obligated to respond is to the comment on your first part. It boxes ForCES into only being useful in a southbound control-datapath separation. We've used it to control a bunch of ethernet switches which have co-resident control/data plane from the vendor. We've used it to configure things that are not packet processing entities - consider this presentation https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-forces-2.pdf which illustrates how we model a configuration file (nothing to do with a datapath functional block) into an LFB and then proceed to query/set from the CE. cheers, jamal From susan.hares@huawei.com Mon Aug 27 04:24:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D55021F8624; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QNkj4BhsfiUw; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B4D21F8581; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id APO00627; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:24:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:22:53 -0700 Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.11]) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.102]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:22:49 -0700 From: Susan Hares To: Benson Schliesser , Stephane Bortzmeyer Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] [forces] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) Thread-Index: AQHNghTy7lJH0qzQwkS3zfGREDf7b5dthq1A Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:22:48 +0000 Message-ID: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B1462376A586@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> In-Reply-To: <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.212.244.73] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:30:41 -0700 Cc: "tnadeau@juniper.net" , "forces@ietf.org" , "akatlas@juniper.net" , "irs-discuss@ietf.org" , "wardd@cisco.com" Subject: Re: [forces] [irs-discuss] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:24:50 -0000 Benson: Forces is looking between the control plane and the data forwarding plane. = The IRS work is focused on contacting between a control program and the rou= ting process on the routing control plane. X central controller=20 (IRS Commissioner)=20 |=20 IRS client (Control Plane (CP) - routing process)=20 [routing processes] CP -=20 ---- Forces CE=20 | Forces FE =20 Sue Hares=20 -----Original Message----- From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On= Behalf Of Benson Schliesser Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:24 AM To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: tnadeau@juniper.net; wardd@cisco.com; forces@ietf.org; akatlas@juniper.= net; irs-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] [forces] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss --= Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) Hi, Stephane. On 8/24/12 11:05 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. >> >> List address: irs-discuss@ietf.org >> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss/ >> To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss > It really looks like very close from what the Forces working group > have been doing. Can anyone explain why we need to start a new > project? At a high level, I think there is a different assumption about where the=20 control-plane resides. In IRS the forwarding and control planes might be=20 co-resident in the router (i.e. not "separated"), and the IRS protocol=20 would be a way of extending limited control over routing state to=20 external applications. If I understand ForCES correctly (which is possibly not the case) then I=20 imagine it could be used in a similar architecture and/or as a protocol=20 layer for IRS. But the first step in the context of IRS is to make a=20 problem statement, understand requirements, etc. Others might have more intelligent comments, which I welcome. :) But=20 please let me know if this perspective helps clarify things, and/or if=20 I'm missing some ideas that I should understand better, etc. Cheers, -Benson _______________________________________________ irs-discuss mailing list irs-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss From hadi@mojatatu.com Mon Aug 27 04:42:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFE121F84B2 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:42:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BKYz7g4N6a7Q for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66CF21F851B for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so9015179obb.31 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:42:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=yMC3S+KOgDahPEhjiQl5nRHMCAK9B4fT3A+uxILOk4M=; b=lJNg/mbrdMQrm8sFsv2r2V8iVv64EC2c2YoDMSJmfQWZNvMlsbW06lXWldCG1PTpEQ IOA3Pl3u4+86Si9BQKDfRgdaTUB8wUWI0ST7X7Vb8xsBymt7avXb0Yi1sJ9vrqtLnXER n1TsYbdE6sML7linZAFBMhXiAKduCGLmDfK/ziyWIj9DUtiskjDb1suzM5Qgq0Y9l8S/ VjwdZmx8YkE8yaS5EQpWQ7PxoZ4FsAiYxR72p+F5Qbz8lr1L4Tajsc+3u+JXv2PJd6IT yhGLlSU5B6Q1/vU0gLMy/g09be4rO8z2J0yjAvd4wb9w81JZmi3PnTKWfu+A1Q4oC0JS PFTg== Received: by 10.182.78.161 with SMTP id c1mr9659456obx.88.1346067769248; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:42:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.97.71 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:42:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B1462376A586@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B1462376A586@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:42:28 -0400 Message-ID: To: Susan Hares Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHEWxkyzgLFcskOSL49HD0a4Ms7xkF5z3c/jNYKMsr03fXGlQBTTuIRvZjX8CygxuMTZDC Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" , "tnadeau@juniper.net" , "akatlas@juniper.net" , "wardd@cisco.com" , "forces@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [forces] [irs-discuss] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:42:55 -0000 With apologies to Alia, I feel obligated to feed this discussion ;-> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > Benson: > > Forces is looking between the control plane and the data forwarding plane. >The IRS work is focused on contacting between a control program and the routing process on the routing >control plane. > In my view: IRS may provide an API or abstraction that looks like a routing sockets or netlink_route (refer to section 3.1 and 3.2 of RFC 3549), underneath the implementation maybe indeed ForCES. cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Mon Aug 27 05:39:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B4621F8619 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.892 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ko6BMq10YJ6W for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FE221F8611 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so9128508obb.31 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=E55zgiJEoYjDjM2oimSkdjAOZnq8gfkTTNi+LTRLWKw=; b=RGdHyD/F/9VDH8kQcUYlotKi+bpvSKSfhLe4+NBe0z36JLM8nFTrwMMozxKJMRk3Cx PS/z7MfvBqaLDBzmFqTcgQwOU5OabNLSfZC30SdchLZMrnAokhQvy4DlupbZRjb+tcQp KXwfVCe6p028tiCYOqI6fKOTpkqyxQjn4d42RutAFbWROMPZv/T1M5IveA2Aksure0eP ipE/kz5Rk26SHxDK1nG2FQ0N17JyeEeDOEReZOaZHgIrotq/6iidYdKSiORExXl+lUnU 0MzZGth5grLxrUr+h60TlX6ylT0SPvetuGiUI3wTm+8DoZCxXJDrtPpZjK3nQ+lXYRwj dArA== Received: by 10.182.78.161 with SMTP id c1mr9769015obx.88.1346071188657; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.97.71 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:39:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <001301cd844b$82678b50$8736a1f0$@ndzh.com> References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B1462376A586@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <001301cd844b$82678b50$8736a1f0$@ndzh.com> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:39:28 -0400 Message-ID: To: Susan Hares Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmMDkW0s7J8UztHw6yUEp98jv+nmiNAB0nbYhOg8AaHkLqZnSXsxtnlslVvh9sNh+Cv/yD1 Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org, tnadeau@juniper.net, akatlas@juniper.net, wardd@cisco.com, forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] [irs-discuss] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:39:49 -0000 Hi Sue, On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > Jamal: > > Can you give an example of how IRS and Forces might interact via this route > socket? > Due to the wide background on the lists (irs & forces) , it would be good to > give an example within a switch or router as context. Just the example i posted from the RFC which demonstrates access to a FIB and nexthop tables. All of that can be delivered with ForCES (given netlink was an input in ForCES design). The semantics to a RIB as opposed to a FIB are different. Example, the credentials are weaker on the FIB aspects (the "protocol" field in the route message). But all that is a model issue i.e ForCES is agnostic of the description. I know you are a guru in this area - so hoping to get some wisdom. Sorry for dragging this discussion into this direction. cheers, jamal From shares@ndzh.com Mon Aug 27 05:00:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EA121F8581; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:00:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BbzxF6n2BCw5; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD6821F853B; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=109.166.152.69; Received: from SKH2012HPLT (unverified [109.166.152.69]) by hickoryhill-consulting.com (SurgeMail 5.2a) with ESMTP id 3555818-1945496 for multiple; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:00:10 -0400 From: "Susan Hares" To: "'Jamal Hadi Salim'" , "'Susan Hares'" References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <5037AAAC.7090907@queuefull.net> <728F9B956B2C48439CA9294B1723B1462376A586@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:00:08 -0400 Message-ID: <001301cd844b$82678b50$8736a1f0$@ndzh.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHGi/MzPmFUwrwIwNdekcMmC1GPoAK/DDf9AsGrIXUCxWx7uAGHRPGcly0TLGA= Content-Language: en-us X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:40:21 -0700 Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org, tnadeau@juniper.net, akatlas@juniper.net, wardd@cisco.com, forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] [irs-discuss] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:00:21 -0000 Jamal: Can you give an example of how IRS and Forces might interact via this route socket? Due to the wide background on the lists (irs & forces) , it would be good to give an example within a switch or router as context. Sue -----Original Message----- From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 7:42 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Benson Schliesser; irs-discuss@ietf.org; Stephane Bortzmeyer; tnadeau@juniper.net; akatlas@juniper.net; wardd@cisco.com; forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] [forces] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) With apologies to Alia, I feel obligated to feed this discussion ;-> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > Benson: > > Forces is looking between the control plane and the data forwarding plane. >The IRS work is focused on contacting between a control program and the routing process on the routing >control plane. > In my view: IRS may provide an API or abstraction that looks like a routing sockets or netlink_route (refer to section 3.1 and 3.2 of RFC 3549), underneath the implementation maybe indeed ForCES. cheers, jamal _______________________________________________ irs-discuss mailing list irs-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Aug 29 12:46:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5484221F84F9; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:46:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.861, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EKgk4b2HJ3px; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08C621F84F2; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q7TJko81019480 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:46:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub03.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.80]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q7TJkm7W031877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:16:48 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.80]) with mapi; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:16:47 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: Stephane Bortzmeyer , "forces@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:16:45 +0530 Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) Thread-Index: Ac2EdvQovMF6DegBTteBe7s7RqbWJwBpq4qQ Message-ID: References: <20120727004529.5739.53836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> In-Reply-To: <20120824160539.GA2134@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:00:40 -0700 Cc: "tnadeau@juniper.net" , "wardd@cisco.com" , "akatlas@juniper.net" , "irs-discuss@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [forces] [irs-discuss] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interface to The Internet Routing System (IRS) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:46:55 -0000 I am not quite sure about this. We find the problem statement of IRS as fol= lows: <> In order to enable applications to have access to and control over information in the Internet's routing system, we need a publically documented interface specification. The interface needs to support real-time, transaction-based interactions using efficient data models and encodings. Furthermore, the interface must support a variety of use cases including those where verified control feed-back loops are needed. The way I understand, it's about building flexible/programmable=20 abstractions into Routing Systems - It's not necessary that entire control = plane is taken away. So I don't see the framework as complete separation=20 of control plane and data plane. The IRS frame work further highlights Bidirectional Interfaces to the Routi= ng System. Thanks, Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On= Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:06 AM To: forces@ietf.org Cc: tnadeau@juniper.net; irs-discuss@ietf.org; akatlas@juniper.net; wardd@c= isco.com Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] New Non-WG Mailing List: irs-discuss -- Interfac= e to The Internet Routing System (IRS) On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 05:45:29PM -0700, IETF Secretariat wrote=20 a message of 34 lines which said: > A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. >=20 > List address: irs-discuss@ietf.org > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss/ > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss It really looks like very close from what the Forces working group have been doing. Can anyone explain why we need to start a new project? _______________________________________________ irs-discuss mailing list irs-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss