Hi Ladislav, >this work, or at least its general parts, is closely related to the >following work item of the NETMOD WG: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-09
Yes. I agree and I've been aware of this document all along. >I tried to compare these two documents, and IMO the match is pretty good. >Paradoxically, the match would be even better if we take one of the >previous revisions of the routing-cfg documents because some constraints >that were originally present have been relaxed in the meantime (details >follow). > >I think it would make a good sense to coordinate these two efforts, and >it should't be difficult. Agree again. > >Specific comments: > >1. What you call "routing instance" is very similar to "router >(instance)" in routing-cfg. Interfaces are also assigned to each router >instance, but we don't require (since rev. -03) that the sets of >interfaces assigned to different router instances be disjoint. One use >case is that two router instances may be used for different address >families, e.g., instance A for IPv4 and B for IPv6. Then the same >interface may be used in A for IPv4 traffic and in B for IPv6. Perhaps >this also depends on the definition of "interface". Interface is not address family specific. It's not clear why one would need 2 router instances, one per address type. The way I've been modeling this is how I've seen customers use interfaces. They associate all features with a given interface as part of one domain. So everything related to a given GigE interface (like routes, VPNs, etc) are managed in a wholesome way. >2. Until rev. -05, each routing table was also confined to one router >instance. This was relaxed based on the following comment of a Routing >Directorate reviewer (Thomas Morin): > >"Allowing multiple "routers" is a good starting point for using these >specs in the context of RFC4364 >(MPLS/BGP IP VPNs). However, if I understand correctly Yang syntax, the >way the filters are defined would >not work in the context of RFC4364, where a BGP routing instance in the >master "router" exports selected >routes in each of the routing table of each VPN (VRF). The VRF also >export routes to the master >instance." IMO this is the export-import policy stuff (that I left out on purpose in rev -00). IMO, import-export between tables in different router instances should be supported/allowed. But that does not mean the tables need to be in multiple router instances. Based on your knowledge of Yang, do you think it's not possible to define import-export of routes between tables in different instances? Rest of your comments were data-model specific, which I will defer for now (we'll take that up on a separate thread). Thanks Nitin _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
