On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:21:38AM -0500, Russ White wrote: > > > 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." >
Data models for different protocols such as OSPF or BGP have so far been done in WGs that care about those protocols and this has generally worked well as far as I can tell. We are now moving towards YANG models for configuration and state data and a general framework for YANG routing models has been defined in the NETMOD WG [1] (the next update of this document will go to WG last call). We expect that BGP, OSPF, ... specific extensions of this core routing model will be produced and we envision that this work takes place in the routing area, e.g., in WGs maintaining these routing protocols. Of course, we first need concrete proposals to start from. I think what I am saying is that (a) there is work going on outside of I2RS and we better avoid overlapping activities and (b) I like to remind you that work can be split and it is not necessary that I2RS creates all data models on its own. /js [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-11 -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
