Protocol Independent Use Cases for an Interface to the Routing System
draft-white-i2rs-use-case-06

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06                                          
i2rs                                                            R. White
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Informational                                  S. Hares
Expires: January 5, 2015                                          Huawei
                                                               A. Retana
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            July 4, 2014


 Protocol Independent Use Cases for an Interface to the Routing System
                      draft-white-i2rs-use-case-06

Abstract

   Programmatic interfaces to provide control over individual forwarding
   devices in a network promise to reduce operational costs while
   improving scaling, control, and visibility into the operation of
   large scale networks.  To this end, several programmatic interfaces
   have been proposed.  OpenFlow, for instance, provides a mechanism to
   replace the dynamic control plane processes on individual forwarding
   devices throughout a network with off box processes that interact
   with the forwarding tables on each device.  Another example is
   NETCONF, which provides a fast and flexible mechanism to interact
   with device configuration and policy.

   There is, however, no proposal which provides an interface to all
   aspects of the routing system as a system.  Such a system would not
   interact with the forwarding system on individual devices, but rather
   with the control plane processes already used to discover the best
   path to any given destination through the network, as well as
   interact with the routing information base (RIB), which feeds the
   forwarding table the information needed to actually switch traffic at
   a local level.

   This document describes a set of use cases such a system could
   fulfill.  It is designed to provide underlying support for the
   framework, policy, and other drafts describing the Interface to the
   Routing System (I2RS).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Summary of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Distributed Reaction to Network Based Attacks . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Remote Service Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Within Data Center Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Temporary Overlays between Data Centers . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Comparison of I2RS requirements with I2RS RIB Information
       Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   The Architecture for the Interface to the Routing System
   [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] allows for a mechanism where the
   distributed control plane can be augmented by an outside control
   plane through an open, accessible interface, including the Routing
   Information Base (RIB), in individual devices to solve issues
   described in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement].  The RIB Info Model
   [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model] specifies the information elements
   accessible by the I2RS system in the RIB.



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


   This represents a "halfway point" between completely replacing the
   traditional distributed control plane and directly configuring
   devices to distribute policy or modifications to routing through off-
   board processes.  This draft proposes a set of use cases that explain
   where the work described utilizing the RIB information model will be
   useful.  The goal is to inform not only the community's understanding
   of where I2RS fits in the larger scheme of SDN proposals, but also to
   inform the requirements, framework, and specification of I2RS to
   provide the best fit for the purposes which make the most sense for
   this type of programmatic interface.

   Towards this end the authors have searched for a number of different
   use cases representing not only complex modifications of the control
   plane, including interaction with applications and network
   conditions, but also simpler use cases.  The array of use cases
   presented here should provide the reader with a solid understanding
   of the power of an SDN solution that will augment, rather than
   replace, traditional distributed control planes.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Summary of Requirements

   Each use case is presented in its own section with a list of
   requirements.  The full list of requirements is below.  Each
   requirement in these lists has an identifier PI-REQnn where PI-REQ
   standard for protocol independent requirements and nn is a
   requirement number.  Each unique requirement has been given a number
   so in some use cases the numbers may skip numbers.  For example, use
   case 2 has requirements PI-REQ01, PI-REQ06, and PI-REQ07.

   At the end of this document, these use case requirements are compared
   against the current I2RS RIB informational model (RIB IM)
   ([I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]).  In this section, the RIB Inform
   requirements are numbered PI-RIB_IM-nn where nn is the requirement
   number.

   o  PI-REQ01: The ability to monitor the available routes installed in
      the RIB of each forwarding device, including near real time
      notification of route installation and removal.  This information
      must include the destination prefix (NLRI), a table identifier (if
      the forwarding device has multiple forwarding instances), the
      metric of the installed route, and an identifier indicating the
      installing process.



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


   o  PI-REQ02: The ability to install source and destination based
      routes in the local RIB of each forwarding device.  This must
      include the ability to supply the destination prefix (NLRI), the
      source prefix (NLRI), a table identifier (if the forwarding device
      has multiple forwarding instances), a route preference, a route
      metric, a next hop, an outbound interface, and a route process
      identifier.

   o  PI-REQ03: The ability to install a route to a null destination,
      effectively filtering traffic to this destination.

   o  PI-REQ04: The ability to interact with various policies configured
      on the forwarding devices, in order to inform the policies
      implemented by the dynamic routing processes.  This interaction
      should be through existing configuration mechanisms, such as
      NETCONF, and should be recorded in the configuration of the local
      device so operators are aware of the full policy implemented in
      the network from the running configuration.

   o  PI-REQ05: The ability to interact with traffic flow and other
      network traffic level measurement protocols and systems, in order
      to determine path performance, top talkers, and other information
      required to make an informed path decision based on locally
      configured policy.

   o  PI-REQ06: The ability to install destination based routes in the
      local RIB of each forwarding device.  This must include the
      ability to supply the destination prefix (NLRI), a table
      identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple forwarding
      instances), a route preference, a route metric, a next hop, an
      outbound interface, and a route process identifier.

   o  PI-REQ07: The ability to read the local RIB of each forwarding
      device, including the destination prefix (NLRI), a table
      identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple forwarding
      instances), the metric of each installed route, a route
      preference, and an identifier indicating the installing process.

   o  PI-REQ08: The ability to read the tables of other local protocol
      processes running on the device.  This reading action should be
      supported through an import/export interface which can present the
      information in a consistent manner across all protocol
      implementations, rather than using a protocol specific model for
      each type of available process.

   o  PI-REQ09: The ability to inject information directly into the
      local tables of other protocol processes running on the forwarding
      device.  This injection should be supported through an import/



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


      export interface which can inject routing information in a
      consistent manner across all protocol implementations, rather than
      using a protocol specific model for each type of available
      process.

   o  PI-REQ10: The ability to interact with policies and configurations
      on the forwarding devices using time based processing, either
      through timed auto-rollback or some other mechanism.  This
      interaction should be through existing configuration mechanisms,
      such as NETCONF, and should be recorded in the configuration of
      the local device so operators are aware of the full policy
      implemented in the network from the running configuration.

3.  Distributed Reaction to Network Based Attacks

   Quickly modifying the control plane to reroute traffic for one
   destination while leaving a standard configuration in place (filters,
   metrics, and other policy mechanisms) is a challenge --but this is
   precisely the challenge of a network engineer attempting to deal with
   a network incursion.  The ability to redirect specific flows of
   information or specific classes of traffic into, through, and back
   out of traffic analyzers on the fly is crucial in these situations.
   The following network diagram provides an illustration of the
   problem.

    Valid Source---\  /--R2--------------------\
                    R1                          R3---Valid Destination
    Attack Source--/  \--Monitoring Device-----/

   Modifying the cost of the link between R1 and R2 to draw the attack
   traffic through the monitoring device in the distributed control
   plane will, of necessity, also draw the valid traffic through the
   monitoring device.  Drawing valid traffic through a monitoring device
   introduces delay, jitter, and other quality of service issues, as
   well as posing a problem for the monitoring device itself in terms of
   traffic load and management.

   An I2RS controller could stand between the detection of the attack
   and the control plane to facilitate the rapid modification of control
   and forwarding planes to either block the traffic or redirect it to
   analysis devices connected to the network.










White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


                  +----------+
                  |i2rs-client|-------------------
                  |           |-----------+      |
                  -----------+            |      |
                           |           +------+  |
                           |           | ir2s |  |
                           |           | agent|  |
          Valid Source--\  |       /---|R2    |-------+\
                         +-------+/    +------+  |       \
                         |R1 i2rs|               |    R3--Valid
                         |  agent|               |    Destination
                         +-------+        i2rs agent
          Attack Source--/     \--Monitoring Device-----/

   Summary of I2RS Capabilities and Interactions:

   In the lists below, the REQnn in which nn is a number indicates a
   unique requirement from the use cases.

   o  PI-REQ01: The ability to monitor the available routes installed in
      the RIB of each forwarding device, including near real time
      notification of route installation and removal.  The information
      pulled from the RIB must include the destination prefix (NLRI),
      the table identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple
      forwarding instances), the metric of the installed route, and the
      identifier for the installing process.

   o  PI-REQ02: The ability to install source and destination based
      routes in the local RIB of each forwarding device.  This must
      include the ability to supply the destination prefix (NLRI), the
      source prefix (NLRI), a table identifier (if the forwarding device
      has multiple forwarding instances), a route preference, a route
      metric, a next hop, an outbound interface, and a route process
      identifier.

   o  PI-REQ03: The ability to install a route to a null destination,
      effectively filtering traffic to this destination.

   o  PI-REQ04: The ability to interact with various policies configured
      on the forwarding devices, in order to inform the policies
      implemented by the dynamic routing processes.  This interaction
      should be through existing configuration mechanisms, such as
      NETCONF, and should be recorded in the configuration of the local
      device so operators are aware of the full policy implemented in
      the network from the running configuration.

   o  PI-REQ5: The ability to interact with traffic flow and other
      network traffic level measurement protocols and systems, in order



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


      to determine path performance, top talkers, and other information
      required to make an informed path decision based on locally
      configured policy.

4.  Remote Service Routing

   In hub and spoke overlay networks, there is always an issue with
   balancing between the information held in the spoke routing table,
   optimal routing through the network underlying the overlay, and
   mobility.  Most solutions in this space use some form of centralized
   route server that acts as a directory of all reachable destinations
   and next hops, a protocol by which spoke devices and this route
   server communicate, and caches at the remote sites.

   An I2RS solution would use the same elements, but with a different
   control plane.  Remote sites would register (or advertise through
   some standard routing protocol, such as BGP), the reachable
   destinations at each site, along with the address of the router (or
   other device) used to reach that destination.  These would, as
   always, be stored in a route server (or several redundant route
   servers) at a central location.

   When a remote site sends a set of packets to the central location
   that are eventually destined to some other remote site, the central
   location can forward this traffic, but at the same time simply
   directly insert the correct routing information into the remote
   site's routing table.  If the location of the destination changes,
   the route server can directly modify the routing information at the
   remote site as needed.






















White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


               +---------------------+
               |  APP or Controller  |
               +---------------------+
                    |
                    |
                 +----------------+
                /  Centralized     \
               +   Route server     +
               ----------------------
               |      hub           |
               |      192.50.128/24 *---------+
               +--*----*---*------*-+         |
               |  |    |   |      |           |
               +--*--+ | +-*--+  +*----+      |
    source 1---|  A  |---|  C |--|  D  |----  |
        \     /+--+--+ | +----+  +-----+      |
          \  /    |    |    |                 |
           \/     |    |    |                 |
           /\  +-----+ |   +-----+*-----------+
    source 2 \ |  B  *-|   |  D  |
              \|     |-----|     |-----
               +-----+     +-----+

        *- are RS connections
        |- are hub/spoke connects



   An interesting aspect of this solution is that no new and specialized
   protocols are needed between the remote sites and the centralized
   route server(s).  Normal routing protocols can be used to notify the
   centralized route server(s) of modifications in reachability
   information, and the route server(s) can respond as needed, based on
   local algorithms optimized for a particular application or network.
   For instance, short lived flows might be allowed to simply pass
   through the hub site with no reaction, while longer lived flows might
   warrant a specific route to be installed in the remote router.
   Algorithms can also be developed that would optimize traffic flow
   through the overlay, and also to remove routing entries from remote
   devices when they are no longer needed based on far greater
   intelligence than simple non-use for some period of time.

   Summary of I2RS Capabilities and Interactions:

   o  PI-REQ01: The ability to monitor the available routes installed in
      the RIB of each forwarding device, including near real time
      notification of route installation and removal.  This information
      must include the destination prefix (NLRI), a table identifier (if



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


      the forwarding device has multiple forwarding instances), the
      metric of the installed route, and an identifier indicating the
      installing process.

   o  PI-REQ06: The ability to install destination based routes in the
      local RIB of each forwarding device.  This must include the
      ability to supply the destination prefix (NLRI), a table
      identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple forwarding
      instances), a route preference, a route metric, a next hop, an
      outbound interface, and a route process identifier.

   o  PI-REQ07: The ability to read the local RIB of each forwarding
      device, including the destination prefix (NLRI), a table
      identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple forwarding
      instances), the metric of each installed route, a route
      preference, and an identifier indicating the installing process.

5.  Within Data Center Routing

   Data Centers have evolved into massive topologies with thousands of
   server racks and millions of hosts.  Data Centers use BGP with ECMP,
   ISIS (with multiple LAGs), or other protocols to tie the data center
   together.  Data centers are currently designed around a three or four
   tier structure with: server, top-of-rack switches, aggregation
   switches, and router interfacing the data center to the Internet.
   [I-D.lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc] examines many of these elements
   of data center design.

   One element of these Data Center routing infrastructures is the
   ability to quickly read topology information and execute
   configuration from a centralized location.  Key to this environment
   is the tight feedback loop between learning about topology changes or
   loading changes, and instantiating new routing policy.  Without I2RS,
   may Data Centers are using extra physical topologies or logical
   topologies to work around the features.

   An I2RS solution would use the same elements, but with a different
   control plane.  The I2RS enabled control plane could provide the Data
   Center 4 tier infrastructure the quick access to topology and data
   flow information needed for traffic flow optimization.  Changes to
   the Data Center infrastructure done via I2RS could have a tight
   feedback loop.

   Again, this solution would reduce the need for new and specialized
   protocols while giving the Data Center the control it desire.  The
   I2RS routing interface could be extended to virtual routers.

   Summary of I2RS Capabilities and Interactions:



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


   o  PI-REQ01: The ability to monitor the available routes installed in
      the RIB of each forwarding device, including near real time
      notification of route installation and removal.  This information
      must include the destination prefix (NLRI), a table identifier (if
      the forwarding device has multiple forwarding instances), the
      metric of the installed route, and an identifier indicating the
      installing process.

   o  PI-REQ04: The ability to interact with various policies configured
      on the forwarding devices, in order to inform the policies
      implemented by the dynamic routing processes.  This interaction
      should be through existing configuration mechanisms, such as
      NETCONF, and should be recorded in the configuration of the local
      device so operators are aware of the full policy implemented in
      the network from the running configuration.

   o  PI-REQ05: The ability to interact with traffic flow and other
      network traffic level measurement protocols and systems, in order
      to determine path performance, top talkers, and other information
      required to make an informed path decision based on locally
      configured policy.

   o  PI-REQ06: The ability to install destination based routes in the
      local RIB of each forwarding device.  This must include the
      ability to supply the destination prefix (NLRI), a table
      identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple forwarding
      instances), a route preference, a route metric, a next hop, an
      outbound interface, and a route process identifier.

   o  PI-REQ07: The ability to read the local RIB of each forwarding
      device, including the destination prefix (NLRI), a table
      identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple forwarding
      instances), the metric of each installed route, a route
      preference, and an identifier indicating the installing process.

   o  PI-REQ08: The ability to read the tables of other local protocol
      processes running on the device.  This reading action should be
      supported through an import/export interface which can present the
      information in a consistent manner across all protocol
      implementations, rather than using a protocol specific model for
      each type of available process.

   o  PI-REQ09: The ability to inject information directly into the
      local tables of other protocol processes running on the forwarding
      device.  This injection should be supported through an import/
      export interface which can inject routing information in a
      consistent manner across all protocol implementations, rather than




White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


      using a protocol specific model for each type of available
      process.

6.  Temporary Overlays between Data Centers

   Data Centers within one organization may operate as one single entity
   even though they may be geographically distributed.  Applications are
   load balanced within Data Centers and between data centers to take
   advantage of cost economics in power, storage, and server
   availability for compute resources.  Applications are also transfer
   to alternate data centers in case of failures within a data center.
   To reduce time during failure, Data Centers often replicate user
   storage between two or more data centers.  During the transfer of
   stored information prior to a Data Center to Data Center move, the
   Data Center controllers need to dynamically acquire a large amount of
   inter-data center bandwidth through an overlay network, often during
   off hours.

   I2RS could provide the connection between the overlay network
   configuration, local policies, and the control plane to dynamically
   bring a large bandwidth inter-data center overlay or channel into
   use, and then to remove it from use when the data transfer is
   completed.

   Similarly, during a fail-over, a control process within data centers
   interacts with a group host process and the network to seamless move
   the processing to another data center.  During the fail-over case,
   additional process state may need to be moved as well to restart the
   system.  The difference between these data-to-data center moves is
   immediate and urgent need to move systems.  If an application (such
   as medical or banking services) pays to have this type of fail-over,
   it is likely the network service this application uses will pay for
   the preemption on network bandwidth and a Quality of Service (QoS) on
   the data transfer to allow the failover traffic to flow quickly to
   the remote datacenter.  I2RS can allow the Data Center network and
   the Network connecting the data center to preempt other best-effort
   traffic to send this priority data flow and to set a QoS that will
   allow quick data transfer.  After the high priority data flow has
   finished, networks can return to their previous condition.

   Summary of I2RS Capabilities and Interactions:

   o  PI-REQ01: The ability to monitor the available routes installed in
      the RIB of each forwarding device, including near real time
      notification of route installation and removal.  This information
      must include the destination prefix (NLRI), a table identifier (if
      the forwarding device has multiple forwarding instances), the




White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


      metric of the installed route, and an identifier indicating the
      installing process.

   o  PI-REQ02: The ability to install source and destination based
      routes in the local RIB of each forwarding device.  This must
      include the ability to supply the destination prefix (NLRI), the
      source prefix (NLRI), a table identifier (if the forwarding device
      has multiple forwarding instances), a route preference, a route
      metric, a next hop, an outbound interface, and a route process
      identifier.

   o  PI-REQ05: The ability to interact with traffic flow and other
      network traffic level measurement protocols and systems, in order
      to determine path performance, top talkers, and other information
      required to make an informed path decision based on locally
      configured policy.

   o  PI-REQ06: The ability to install destination based routes in the
      local RIB of each forwarding device.  This must include the
      ability to supply the destination prefix (NLRI), a table
      identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple forwarding
      instances), a route preference, a route metric, a next hop, an
      outbound interface, and a route process identifier.

   o  PI-REQ07: The ability to read the local RIB of each forwarding
      device, including the destination prefix (NLRI), a table
      identifier (if the forwarding device has multiple forwarding
      instances), the metric of each installed route, a route
      preference, and an identifier indicating the installing process.

   o  PI-REQ10: The ability to interact with policies and configurations
      on the forwarding devices using time based processing, either
      through timed auto-rollback or some other mechanism.  This
      interaction should be through existing configuration mechanisms,
      such as NETCONF, and should be recorded in the configuration of
      the local device so operators are aware of the full policy
      implemented in the network from the running configuration.

7.  Comparison of I2RS requirements with I2RS RIB Information Model

   Comparison of I2RS Capabilities versus the I2RS RIB

   In summary, the I2RS client/agent architecture and protocol SHOULD
   support the following requirements:

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ01: The RIB Info Model [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
      specifies the routes as associated with routing-instance,
      interface-list and RIBs within a Router (virtual or physical)



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


      identified by Router_ID.  Each route has a prefixes, route
      attributes, family attributes (IPv4, Ipv6, MPLS, MAC, interface),
      and next-hop list.  The RIB info model does not keep information
      on the FIB the route was installed in, the metric of the installed
      route, or the identifier of the installing process.  The RIB Info
      Model [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model] does provide a notification
      for route change with an installed in FIB flag, active flag, and
      reason (for non-installation).

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ02: The RIB Info Model [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
      supports installing source-destination routes for IPv4 and IPv6
      for a RIB associated with set of RIBs within a route instance of a
      Router (virtual or physical).  If there is policy that links RIBs
      within a route instance of router to a specific FIB, it is not
      clearly stated in the RIB Info Model
      [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model].  The source-destination is only
      for IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI.  PI-RIB_IM-REQ02: The RIB Info Model
      [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model].  does has a route_preference
      (ROUTE_PREFERENCE), but not a route metric.  The nexthop field
      does have a primary/back preference, a load balancing weight, and
      an egress (outbound) interface per nexthop, and a RIB_ID.  It is
      unclear if the RIB_ID serves the same purpose as the multiple
      forwarding instances.

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ03: The RIB Info Model does not provide a specific
      indication that the default (zero length prefix) route can be
      installed, but this can be implied from the different match
      lengths.

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ04: The ability to interact with various policies via
      existing configuration functions such as NETCONF has not be
      specified directly in RIB Informational Model
      [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model] or any other informational model.

      PI-TED-REQ01/PI-RIB_IM_REQ05: The PI-REQ05 use case requirement
      requires the ability to interact with traffic flow and other
      network traffic level measurement protocols and systems is not
      included the I2RS RIB information model.  The traffic flow and
      traffic level measurement does not need to be in the I2RS RIB, but
      in some Traffic Engineering Information model.

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ06: The RIB Info Model [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
      supports installing destination routes in a RIB for all RIB
      families from a route-instance.  The route_instance is identified
      by the tuple of INSTANCE_NAME and ROUTER_ID.  Each route may
      contain a route preference and multiple next hops, but it does not
      contain a metric per route.  Each nexthop may contains a RIB_ID to
      look-up nexthop, an egress-interface, tunnel nexthop (logical or



White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


      encapsulated).  This must include the ability to supply the
      destination prefix (NLRI), a table identifier (if the forwarding
      device has multiple forwarding instances), a route preference, a
      route metric, a next hop, an outbound interface, and a route
      process identifier.

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ07: The RIB Info Model [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
      supports the ability to read the RIBs associated with each
      routing-instance.  The routing instance is identified by tuple of
      ROUTE_INSTANCE plus optionally interface_list and router ID.  The
      RIBS are identified by NAME and RIB_FAMILY.  The routes within the
      RIB Can be identified by route-match that identifies destination
      (IPv4, IPv6, IEEE MAC, MPLS, interface).  The information read per
      route is the destination prefix (NLRI), route preference and
      multiple nexthops (each with associated metric and RIB).  However,
      it does not indicate the metric of an installed route and the
      identifier of the installing process.

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ08: The ability to read the tables of other local
      protocol processes running on the device.  This reading action
      should be supported through an import/export interface which can
      present the information in a consistent manner across all protocol
      implementations, rather than using a protocol specific model for
      each type of available process.

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ09: No informational model supports the ability to
      inject information of other protocol processing running on the
      forwarding device.  The RIB Info Model
      [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model] inserts the routes with RIB with a
      The ability to inject information directly into the local tables
      of other protocol processes running on the forwarding device.
      This injection should be supported through an import/export
      interface which can inject routing information in a consistent
      manner across all protocol implementations, rather than using a
      protocol specific model for each type of available process.

      PI-RIB_IM-REQ10: The ability to interact with policies and
      configurations on the forwarding devices using time based
      processing, either through timed auto-rollback or some other
      mechanism.  This interaction should be through existing
      configuration mechanisms, such as NETCONF, and should be recorded
      in the configuration of the local device so operators are aware of
      the full policy implemented in the network from the running
      configuration.







White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
              Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
              Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
              System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-04 (work in
              progress), June 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement]
              Atlas, A., Nadeau, T., and D. Ward, "Interface to the
              Routing System Problem Statement", draft-ietf-i2rs-
              problem-statement-04 (work in progress), June 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
              Bahadur, N., Folkes, R., Kini, S., and J. Medved, "Routing
              Information Base Info Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-
              model-03 (work in progress), May 2014.

   [I-D.lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc]
              Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, "Use of BGP for
              routing in large-scale data centers", draft-lapukhov-bgp-
              routing-large-dc-06 (work in progress), August 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Russ White
   Ericsson

   Email: russw@riw.us


   Susan Hares
   Huawei

   Email: shares@ndzh.com









White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               I2RS Use Cases                    July 2014


   Alvaro Retana
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27617
   USA

   Email: aretana@cisco.com












































White, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 16]