"t.petch" <[email protected]> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeffrey Haas" <[email protected]> > To: "t.petch" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Russ White" <[email protected]>; "'Susan Hares'" <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; "'Jeffrey Haas'" <[email protected]>; "'Edward Crabbe'" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:15 PM > Subject: Re: tables was: Re: [i2rs] draft-white-i2rs-use-case-05.txt has > been posted > > >> 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 > > We have just got a netmod-isis draft > draft-litkowski-netmod-isis-cfg-00.txt > and I look for items of the third type, and at first sight, I do not see > them, just as I cannot recall seeing them in SMI models, either > standards-based or proprietary (unlike the LSDB). Of course > they can be added but ....
This is provided already by the core "ietf-routing" module's RPC method "active-route". The ISIS module properly augments the definition of this RPC with ISIS-specific route attributes. Lada > well, I have said enough about it. > > Tom Petch > > > > > > >> >> -- Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
