Hi Joel, Maybe this can help clarify what we meant by the RIB.
The RIB is the totality of all routing-information in a router. The routing information itself can be sub-divided into multiple objects called routing-instances. Routing-instances allow us to partition the physical router into domains that can operate independently from one another in terms of routing and forwarding. The rest of that section describes what objects are contained in a RIB, like routing tables, routes and nexthops. HTH as a starting point. Nitin Bahadur On 7/24/13 3:19 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: >Asking for a text proposal is quite reasonable. >Unfortunately, since my oncern is taht I can not understand what is >meant by RIB in this definition, it is really ahrd to propose an >alternative set of definitions that do what the authors wanted. > >Yours, >Joel > >On 7/24/13 6:16 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >> Joel, >> >> I understand your concern. Do you have text to suggest to Nitin and >> co-authors? >> I think part of this is figuring out how to pull out the RIB bits >> (routing tables) and what traffic they apply to - as well as the policy >> of how to create associated containers. Nitin's called that a routing >> instance... >> >> What set of objects would you create? >> >> I personally would like to see the info-model described in something >> other than rBNF - but I view that as a piece that can happen in a future >> version. >> >> Alia >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Looking again at this document, I have to reluctantly say taht I do >> not support adoption of this document at this time. >> >> The base definition of RIB is still very unclear. A RIB is some >> collection of routing instances? First, this seems upside-down to >> me. A routing instance would seem to contain a RIB, not the other >> way around. Secondly, what defines, describes, or otherwise helps >> decide what set of routing instances go in the same RIB. >> >> If this issue were clarified, I believe the rest of the material is >> in sufficiently good shape for working group adoption. >> >> Yours, >> Joel M. Halpern >> >> >> On 7/24/13 5:55 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >> >> Please review draft-nitinb-i2rs-rib-info-__model-01 and comment >> on whether >> it should be adopted by I2RS. Detailed technical conversation >> is also >> most welcome. >> >> Authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies >> to draft-nitinb-i2rs-rib-info-__model-01 Is so, has this IPR >>been >> disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, >> 4879, 3669 >> and 5378 for more details). >> >> This WG call for adoption will complete on August 12. >> >> Thanks, >> Alia >> >> >> _________________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/i2rs >> <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
