Carlos, good point. But we also need to ask the question of where we express relationships between routing-contexts. E.g. If VPN-1 is being transported over Backbone-1 and VPN-2 over Backbone-2. Would these be inside the routing context or in a top level object ?
- Sri On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
