I oppose adoption of this I-D. The use of terminology seems incompatible with the use of the same terminology elsewhere and, arguably, contradicts the charter.
For example, this I-D says " A RIB contains one or more routing instances. A routing instance, in the context of the RIB information model, is a collection of routing tables, interfaces, and routing parameters. The routing tables specify how incoming traffic is to be forwarded." whereas the charter clearly differentiates the RIB, which is the subject of this WG, from the FIB, which is not. The reference here to routing tables sounds rather like a FIB. (Of course, the charter fails to define RIB and FIB which is likely to be a recurrent problem for all the work of this WG unless and until rough consensus is achieved thereon.) And the I-D places heavy emphasis on interfaces which again seems to have nothing to do with the charter. This topic has surfaced several times on several WG lists, none of which has produced an agreed document, but the best one would appear to me to agree that there are processes, not just data, and that these processes are tied to routing protocols, and that the data thereof needs to be split into three - a RIB (in the sense that I most often see it used) containing the data used by a protocol process instance - a central database of consolidated routes, sometime referred to as RIB2 - what gets used in forwarding, usually by the silicon. Routing table and FIB I see used arbitrarily and so confusingly used for the second and third data structures. (I have no idea what the charter means in this regard). Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> To: "Nitin Bahadur" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Alia Atlas" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:43 AM Subject: Re: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-nitinb-i2rs-rib-info-model-01 (ends Aug 12) > 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 > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
