On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >And the I-D places heavy emphasis on interfaces which again seems to > > >have nothing to do with the charter. > > > > It's unclear to me how you program a route without an associated > interface > > where the data gets sent out. For example in OSPF, if one learns a route > via > > OSPF, you know from which neighbor you learnt it from and you know the > > interface associated with it as well. That's how the router is able to > send the > > packets out to the destination. > > Actually, it isn't... Routing protocols install routes to a next hop, which > is then recursed to find the best interface (or set of interfaces) by which > the local forwarding plane can reach that next hop. I would avoid telling > the RIB which specific interface to use, as this could have very negative > effects on load sharing and fast failover solutions --unless the specific > intent is to provide for load sharing on a per interface level in I2RS. I >
Even today routes can be added with nexthop as an interface. Consider a static route with nexthop as a point-to-point unnumbered interface. > would argue that's more of a job for OpenFlow than I2RS, though. > Great. Now we have another use-case for I2RS ;-) - Sri
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
