> My original intent here was to provide "a name" to something that > aggregated all the routing-instances. > Obviously as many have pointed out, giving it the name of "rib" was a bad > choice. > > So we have 2 choices: > - Remove the top-level object in the grammar (rib) completelyŠand instead > start off with routing-instance. > - Rename "rib" (in the grammar) to something better :)
Let me ask this: Is there some point to the top level "rib" object? IE, would you ever use an object that encompasses every routing table entry across the box, no matter which specific VRF the route is in? To put it another way --is there any time when you might want to say, "hand me every route you have to 10.1.1.0/24, no matter what the routing context?" I can't think of any reason you'd ever ask this type of question --the context of the route is something you must have to make sense of the route itself. In response to that, I'd say it's best to simply remove the top level object itself. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
