Subject: [Anima] AN and I2RS

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 00:59:02 +1200

Hi,

It was mentioned during the UCAN BOF that we should consider any
relationship to I2RS. While waiting to check out of the hotel
later this morning, I have quickly glanced at the I2RS architecture
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-05).

One aspect is how a future I2RS instance could interact with AN.
I2RS says:

>    Routing Element:   A Routing Element implements some subset of the
>       routing system.  It does not need to have a forwarding plane
>       associated with it.  Examples of Routing Elements can include:
> 
>       *  A router with a forwarding plane and RIB Manager that runs
>          ISIS, OSPF, BGP, PIM, etc.,
> 
>       *  A BGP speaker acting as a Route Reflector,
> 
>       *  An LSR that implements RSVP-TE, OSPF-TE, and PCEP and has a
>          forwarding plane and associated RIB Manager,
> 
>       *  A server that runs ISIS, OSPF, BGP and uses ForCES to control a
>          remote forwarding plane,
> 
>       A Routing Element may be locally managed, whether via CLI, SNMP,
>       or NETCONF.

So, I suppose we could argue that an I2RS Routing Element could act
as an Autonomic Networking Service Agent, i.e. it could act as an
interface between the routing system and AN, instead of being
traditionally managed.

We could also wonder whether I2RS isn't a nice AN use case, but it's
very complex - the I2RS WG itself is deep into multiple use case
analysis and information model development - to say it bluntly,
ANIMA doesn't need that much complexity right now ;-).

I think it is far too soon to even hypothetically consider whether
I2RS and AN have overlapping protocol requirements. I2RS has a
line its charter:

> - An analysis of existing IETF and other protocols and encoding
>   languages against the requirements.

but I don't see any sign of an active draft on that topic.

Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to talk with any of the
I2RS protagonists during the IETF. If anybody here can comment
further, please do so.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:36:37 -0400

I2RS has selected YANG for the modeling language and RestConf/NetConf as
the protocol base for I2RS.

Regrettably, I could not attend the BOF, but there might be some synergy
where I2RS provides the mechanisms for learning information & modifying the
routing plane.

Alia
On Jul 26, 2014 8:58 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>

---

From: Jéferson Campos Nobre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:50:52 -0300

Hi,
Inline comments.
Cheers.
Jéferson

> interface between the routing system and AN, instead of being

Do you mean the I2RS agent? For me it seems the Autonomic Networking
Service Agent is closer to the I2RS agent (not the routing element as
a whole). However, considering this means that the AN agent would need
to speak the I2RS protocol...

> ANIMA doesn't need that much complexity right now ;-).

BTW, I think the I2RS use case requirements I-D
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hares-i2rs-usecase-reqs-summary-00)
can be an example for an integrated use case I-D for ANIMA. They also
have several use cases and this I-D gives a consistent view of them
regarding the WG (e.g., classes of use cases).

> but I don't see any sign of an active draft on that topic.

Probably it would be also good to have this kind of analysis for
ANIMA. For example, an alternative for CDNP was mentioned during the
BoF, thus at least the IETF alternatives protocols/mechanisms (if they
exist) should be cited in the ANIMA I-Ds.