Ahhh so you are stating that to provision services on the network in vendor neutral way I will not be able to use I2RS by design ?
Is this already agreed point that NETCONF (or any other form of configuration) will be required anyway in addition to I2RS for any complete service provisioning ? Thx, R. > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Dave Israel <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/14/2013 01:50 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >>> >>> This is doing L3 routing - so VLAN matching seems out; while there may >>> be PWE3 or L2VPN type use-cases eventually, I've not seen them yet. >> >> I think you have missed my point. I am talking about L3. Imagine L3VPN >> PE ... I want to configure the service using I2RS ... you have had use >> case for this even presented today. So I must match on the incoming >> interface (physical or logical) to make sure propor RIB table is used >> for packet lookup. > > > Well, arguably, the routing table you're in is already determined by the > inbound interface. Your inbound interface is already part of a vrf/logical > system/etc. You might be able to use i2rs to request that your interface be > moved from one routing table to another, but that sounds more like a job for > NetCONF-style configuration than I2RS-style ephemeral routing table > manipulation. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
