On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > >..... > But it means we're back to square one --any off box process that wants > to work with the local RIB on a wide variety of boxes must poke through > the documentation (almost never complete, by intention) of each of those > boxes, and build an internal data model that can be used for that > individual box. This lays the problem of data modeling squarely on the > shoulders of the application developer. > > I'd prefer a least common denominator set of things we know we need to > build a RIB (not a forwarding table a RIB), from the start, and then > build where we see more stuff we can do in the future. > > Start small and grow up, don't start big and try to fill out the details > --IMHO.
This is an important point. Do you want a framework that is filled in by vendors (and possibly SDOs) that may be different on each platform, or do you want a common API that provides basic functionality that all vendors must implement? Or both? It's too early to be reviewing YANG modules for I2RS but it would be good to know the direction the API is headed. > Russ Andy _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
