Alia Atlas <[email protected]> writes: > Robert specifically asked about this capability NOT via PBR/ACL. >
Any comments about the approach of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-09? A route is defined there as an extensible container, and future modules (e.g., those defining data models for routing protocols) are expected to augment this container with new attributes. This augmentation is described in sec. 4.4.2 (Defining New Routing Protocols), and and example is shown in Appendix B for RIP. It means that the definion of route is not fixed but depends on the modules supported by the device. Thanks, Lada > Alia > On Mar 18, 2013 9:12 PM, "Anoop Ghanwani" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Alia, >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> The framework gives a first concept of the type of data that I thought >>> would describe a route for the RIB (also RIB layer - not just >>> IPv4/IPv6 RIB). >>> >>> The case of routing on destination IP address plus an L4 port is >>> different, of course - that is asking for NEW functionality in the >>> forwarding plane from what is commonly there beyond support via >>> ACLs/PBRs. I don't personally see i2rs as providing the necessary >>> translation mechanism - but that's with the WG chair hat off. >>> >> >> What makes IPDA+L4 port any different in terms of forwarding plane >> than what is offered by ACLs/PBRs. Isn't that just a subset of what >> is already offered in the forwarding plane? >> >> Anoop >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
