Of course not
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
