In some use cases, Interface to Routing System can be safely interpreted as "interface to RIB (Routing Information Base)". However, for the VPLS use case, such interpretation is not much accurate. For example, a controller needs to create a VPLS instance and bound a given port to that VPLS instance, can this write operation be interpreted as a write operation to the "RIB"? In addition, an ACL table w/r operation can not be interpreted as w/r an operation to RIB as well.
Best regards, Xiaohu ________________________________________ 发件人: [email protected] [[email protected]] 代表 Robert Raszuk [[email protected]] 发送时间: 2013年3月14日 23:02 到: Scott Whyte Cc: [email protected] 主题: Re: [i2rs] RIB definition ... My main question is what L2-L4 fields for the packet lookup I can program to the 'RIB" by I2RS. Very precise and simple. The use case for multiple RIBs is just being shown in the room. L3VPN PE auto-provisioning ;) Best, R,. On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Scott Whyte <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/14/2013 07:46 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> >> I think we agree that RIB elements for read and write must be clearly >> defined. And should be extensible. >> >> But is RIB abstraction sufficient for I2RS ? >> >> For example as we know each VRF contains it's own RIB (different table >> id). So protocol must be able to also encode which RIB we are talking >> to. >> >> Further who will instantiate the VRF in this case ? Will I2RS be able >> to create a RIB instance on the fly ? How will we attach such RIB >> instance to interfaces ? There is dozens of details here without which >> I am afraid we can't go productively forward. > > > I guess I'm confused now on what you consider propietary implementation > detail of a RIB, but I'll assume you are still talking strictly about a RIB > abstraction and increasing its scope to multiple RIBs communicating with a > single I2RS agent. > > Not sure about dozens of details, but your four good questions above all > seem to revolve around a single issue, handling of multiple RIBs, which I > think is important to have as a use case. > > -Scott > > > >> >> Best, >> R. >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Scott Whyte <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 03/14/2013 07:34 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Scott, >>>> >>>>> Why do we need to go beyond defining an interface to the RIB to make >>>>> your >>>>> use case work? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am talking precise about that definition of RIB interface. Not how >>>> the RIB works in given vendor of network element. That is >>>> implementation detail. >>>> >>>> Basically a list of values one can write or read to/from RIB. Have you >>>> seen any document with such list yet ? >>> >>> >>> >>> So we agree that what a RIB looks like is out of scope, and we need to >>> insure extensibility beyond proposed use cases for the actual RIB >>> interface? >>> If so I think the group is well on track to get there, as we grind >>> through >>> use cases and existing data models. >>> >>> -Scott >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> R. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> People who are essentially without the power to implement their ideas in >>> the >>> real world must leverage the power of their reputations. > > > > -- > People who are essentially without the power to implement their ideas in the > real world must leverage the power of their reputations. _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
