[Nsi-wg] UvA/TUD topology exchange proposal

[John MacAuley]

On 2014-09-19, at 8:45 AM, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> wrote:
> 
> So this seems like an argument to encapsulate the behaviour instead of describing it.

I believe we will end up on a hybrid approach where we describe macro level policies and leave the private or really complex policies to the uPA.  I need a high level of success for the first tree path request, not perfect record.  It is then up to us to make sure the errors reported are robust enough for the NSA's path finder to avoid the same problem next time.  I am all about encapsulation, but nothing is stopping us from exposing useful policy data as we have for topology.

> 
> I am not saying that BGP is the shining light of all routing/pathfinding and we should carbon copy it. But it does represent 40 years of networking. So when someone comes up and presents something completely different, I'd expect a coule of good reasons.
> 

I think BGP is a good example of a mechanism in the IP world that does a reasonable job at achieving the end goal.  Obviously, every solution has its issues and people who speak out against it.  From a connection service perspective there are solutions that also achieve an ends, although in my experience many are proprietary.  We need to remember that layer 2 VPN is not the only service NSI can offer, as I believe Tomohiro has demonstrated in their implementation.

John
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1626 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20140919/516e35aa/attachment-0001.bin>