This seems a different use of the term RIB than most of the work I am
familiar with. Even without dealing with things like protocol specific
RIBs, and BGP's RIB-in and RIB-out, when we deal with VRFs we normally
discuss them as using separate RIBs. This is why the terminology seems
upside-down to me.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/24/13 10:21 PM, Nitin Bahadur wrote:
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
