Subject: [i2rs] Centralized vs distributed I2RS use model

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:13:33 +0100

Hi,

I think I am hearing quite clearly from most of the presentations that
there is sort of opinion that I2RS talks to RIBs from some form of
centralized controllers/route servers/topology collectors etc ...

Does this mean that I can't use I2RS in completely distributed manner
without any central controller ?

Note that more and more modern routers and switches gives customers
x86 local compute facilities on the box. So I can easily imagine that
I write a distributed application which communicates box to box at the
application level and installs locally via I2RS interface it's
"routes" to RIB.

Is this model of operation out of scope of this WG ?

Best regards,
R.

---

From: Scott Whyte <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:34:38 -0700

> Is this model of operation out of scope of this WG ?

I think there's enough rope for you to do that and have plenty left over.

-Scott

>
> Best regards,
> R.
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

-- 
People who are essentially without the power to implement their ideas in 
the real world must leverage the power of their reputations.

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:38:44 -0400

I assume the chairs will speak authoritatively on scope, but my
current understanding is that this topic is still up for discussion.

On that topic, I'd like to point out that we have been vague about the
definition of a "broker". I think we assume there is a centralized
broker for each network element - because that lets us push the
coordination problems (multi-personality arbitration etc) to somebody
else. But we haven't explicitly talked about network-wide broker
centralization, keeping the operational state in sync across multiple
devices (to avoid loops and black holes), etc. Nor have we talked
about whether the broker is really a single entity, or if it is
distributed itself - and if that means we've really solved the problem
of coordination (and sanity), or just avoided dealing with it here.

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts, flames, etc about these questions.

Cheers,
-Benson

---

From: Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:39:08 -0400

+1  We have plenty of rope. ^_^

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Scott Whyte <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> ______________________________**_________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/i2rs<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ______________________________**_________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/i2rs<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
>

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:47:24 -0400

IMHO, the answer should be "we're not defining a model that works only centralized or distributed, but a just a model --use it any way you like."

:-)

Russ

<><
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:53:12 +0100

Ok then I think we all agree on this.

Thread closed. (That was incredibly quick :).

Cheers,
R.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:19:25 -0400

It is interesting to discuss whether we need a draft discussing some
examples in the range and scope of architectures of network
applications that might be using i2rs.  I think we all come with
different ideas of what might be sane/safe/needed - but want to leave
lots of room for innovation in that ecosystem.

Alia