> In principal, agreed - however, a standardized way of driving that > (e.g. via NETCONF) would be quite useful (and we are not there yet), > but not in scope here.
Agreed... > The goal of I2RS should be to support an external interface to the > RIB process of a routing element. If a system designer wants to use > I2RS internally within a single routing element instance, that would > be valid, but is not the target of the protocol. My feeling is that > most routing system developers/platforms already have that link > sorted out :) I think this is an important/interesting point... Thanks for bringing it up. > I do believe that it would be useful for I2RS to get the full > candidate database from the various protocols (maybe as they feed in > from the routing processes), before best path winnowing is done. I > assume that is in scope here, but is not completely clear. Yes, I think it is. _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
