Sounds like the distinction between (managing) tunnels and encapsulations. Either way, both are data plane (/forwarding) constructs that need to be allowed for in the terminology.
Lou On 12/6/2012 1:48 PM, Russ White wrote: > >> I intended the latter, i.e. an interface used to transmit traffic in the >> data plane > >>> I know, I know, technically "network interface" has the same potential >>> ambiguities, but I think there's enough history in that term that most >>> people's first thought on seeing it is "thing that attaches a box into a >>> particulr network" >> >> so where do virtual interfaces (e.g., supported via tunnels) fit in? > > IMHO, they should fit in along with normal interfaces --anything that's > layer 3 on those interfaces can be configured. Forwarding information, > however, should not be modeled on the interface, but rather in the RIB. > I know there might be implementations that connect the forwarding > information to the interface itself, but I'd see that as a special case > of a VRF (with which you can associate specific interfaces), rather than > actually trying to manage the forwarding plane on a per-interface basis. > > :-) > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
