----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Raszuk" <[email protected]> To: "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Scott Whyte" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:58 PM
> Yes from what I understand I2RS aims to interact with "global RIB" aka > inet.X tables and ACLs. Not to protocol local RIBs. In which case, perhaps that is interacting with the FIB and not the RIBs, that is a RIB is the database of information that an instance of a routing protocol needs to do what it does, such as calculating the best route for some meaning of the word best. For OSPF, that would be a database of LSAs, for BGP it would include MED, LOCAL_PREF and so on, as well s AFI/SAFI, next hop etc. So, not to protocol local RIBs, because RIBs are protocol local:-) Tom Petch > > Hence my question what actual data can be read and written to such > RIBs by I2RS. > > Rgs, > R. > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> 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. > > > > Well, according to RFC 4271, RIB (i.e., Adj-RIBs, Loc_RIB and Adj-RIBs-Out) are data structures internal to a BGP speaker. I suspect that what I2RS aims at interacting with is what 4271 calls "Routing Table". > > > > Lada > > > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> i2rs mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > > > -- > > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
