On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:11:01AM +0100, t.petch wrote: > It is B that I am doubtful about. It is fine for BGP or RIP, but I do > not see it for link state protocols, that is for me, the SPT is not a > table of routes, backup routes and so on but, well shortest paths. > > Do you see an IS-IS, or OSPF, table comparable to the BGP table?
Without making specific comment on what *should* be present in the model, there are three classes of clearly (IMO) useful information available from the IGPs: - The LSDB, which provides topology - The TEDB - The active route for a given destination at a given node as per SPF computations. The third item is RIB-like and is the usual input to broader router route-selection of an active path from multiple candidates. The third item will probably have tie-in to our RIB models. The first two items are places where abstractions in the model may make sense, but there's also some benefit to simply exposing protocol mechanics in the models. The difference is "this is a type-X LSA in OSPF" vs. "this is a link, this is a node, here are how they connect". The abstraction is a bit more useful in an I2RS context. The protocol mechanics are likely to be something that gets a protocol specific module in the owning Working Group. There will be interesting overlaps in the above two, and one of the more interesting bits of coordination work I2RS will have. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
