Joel: Great! This is the answer I hoped to get. Just to make sure, We are defining a role as: identity + rib tree + access (read or write or read-write). If I define a tree portion that is read-only does that align with our role definitions.
If this is a common definition, then I'm good to release the next version of the draft with read/write for the RIB-info. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:20 AM To: Nitin Bahadur; Susan Hares; 'Mach Chen'; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] Some comments on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-01 Remember that an information model is not a grammar. It is perfectly okay in an IM to have two branches that are just different things. Discriminators are added in when one goes from teh information model to the data model. Yours, Joel On 4/29/14, 2:36 AM, Nitin Bahadur wrote: > Hi Sue, > >> >> >> >>> 4) Would a corrections to the above be useful: >>> Given the above you could simplify your match RBNF: >>> >>> <match>:: = <route-tag> <rt-form> [ipv4-route | ipv6-route | >>> mpls-route >>> | mac-route] >> >> [Nitin] The <rt-form> is not needed for mpls and mac routesŠ.since >> MPLS has no concept of SRC or DEST. So that simplification will >> actually not help :( >> >> [Sue]: Yes, not all forms would benefit. However, MPLS does have the >> stack tags that we may want to save and match on. Also: the 5-tuples >> may be a part of matching some routes. By using rt-form, we are >> using the TLV format to set-up these multiple formats. Each format, >> would have the appropriate expectations for the appropriate address >> families. >> >> [Sue]: I think it provides table based code. > > The main issue is that the grammar will not be deterministic. In other > words, one needs a way to specify that <route-tag-1> <rt-form-A> is > valid and <route-tag-1> <rt-form-B> is NOT valid. > > >> >> The <ip-route-type> will need to be associated specifically with >> <ipv4-route> and <ipv6-route>. >> >> [Sue]: yes, it could. With the rt-form and the rib-family type, >> perhaps we can remove the rt-type. >> [snip] > > Rib-family-type and route-type are kind of the same thing. I need to > think if there is a case where they can be different... > > >> >>> 5) Why did you specify differently? >>> >>> multicast-source-ipv4-address ::=<IPv4-Address> <IPV4_PREFIX_LENGTH> >>> multicast-source-ipv6-address ::=<IPv6-Address><IPV6_PREFIX_LENGTH> >>> >>> Where you trying to express some checking that the node should have >>> on these address? >> >> Thanks for catching this. They have no reference in the -02 version. >> They are a remnant of -00 of the draft. After the grammar was >> modified in -01, they should have been deleted. >> >> Here's the next question - how were you planning to handle the >> multiple next-hops for the multicast. Did you have a plan? >> >> You will have both ECMP (unicast) multiple nexthops, > > Unicast multiple next hops are covered in Section 7.2.3. > > >> and multicast replication next hops. > > Section 7.3 talks about multicast replication (and refers to Section > 7.2.2). > > >> A flag might do nicely to differentiate. >> We could put this on the next hop. > > LOAD_BALANCE_WEIGHT is the flag on the next-hop that is used to > indicate ECMP/load-balancing. > > > > Thanks > Nitin > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
