> If we have a device-centric model showing interfaces and so on, then there's > not a good way to express the learned IGP topology. Would we then need a > different IM - perhaps as part of an IGP-specific IM - to communicate the > topology learned via the IGP? Would that be preferable?
Yes, you are going to need different network models for different protocols, services, etc. There's not going to be any way to combine such models into a "coherent whole." On the other hand, all of these various models must meet in the interface to individual devices, and hence the model of the individual device and any protocols used to communicate with those individual devices. For the moment, the most useful thing I think we can take from these models is to understand, and plan for (if not incorporate immediately), the information they need to gather from individual devices in order to actually be built. So use cases are interesting in this space, though I'm still very concerned about the split or balance between "now" work and "building the foundation for later work." I consider network models "building the foundation for later," work, with the caveat that we need to make certain there is flexibility enough in the individual device model to accommodate the information needed to build a network model. If that makes sense. It's early, and I'm in a different time zone, so... :-) Russ _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
