As Nitin already pointed out in another email we have removed RIB from the top-level of the hierarchy. I wasn't arguing to make a single RIB at the top of hierarchy, but rather seeing if by moving the RIB tables to under routing-instance there would still be any information that would still make sense at the top-level. It doesn't seem there is such information. Having some context identifier is a given in any case.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am considering the case where there is more than one backbone to > provide > > BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. The use-case could be purely for administrative > > purposes. > > If there are multiple backbones (I think you mean multiple VRFs across a > single set of physical links here), then there wouldn't be one "RIB" at the > "top of the hierarchy." There would be multiple "RIBs," with each one > (possibly) bearing the same set of destinations IP address wise, while > actually reaching different topological destinations in the network. The > only way to make these multiple "RIBs" into a single "RIB," would be to > include some form of context identifier, such as a VRF number or RD, to > distinguish between the different destinations. > > Your argument actually argues against a single "RIB" at the top of the > hierarchy, rather than for it. > > :-) > > 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
