Hi Mach, I mean the RIB should have a group of a nexthops and a group of routes and while the draft stated nexthop as part of the route.
I my understanding each route would indicate which of the existing nexthops it uses, allowing a nexthop to be shared by multiple routes without having multiple copies of the same next hop. I don't think my statement contradicts your understand. Best Regards, Edwin Cordeiro On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Mach Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Edwin, > > > > Could you elaborate more about the mean of “nexthops should be handled > separated to routes” ? > > > > In my understanding, the nexthop-add/delete RPC s are designed to operate > the nexthop separately. Of cause, a nexthop list node should be added to > the rib, hence to maintain the added nexthops. > > > > Best regards, > > Mach > > > > *From:* Edwin Cordeiro [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, June 25, 2016 3:25 PM > *To:* Mach Chen > *Cc:* i2rs > *Subject:* Re: [i2rs] Problem using rib-data-model RPC with > rib-info-model Information (draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-05 + > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08) > > > > Hi Mach, > > > > Thanks for the explanation. We thought that nexthops should be handled > separated to routes, but that wasn't reflected in the draft. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > Edwin Cordeiro > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Mach Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Edwin, > > > > Thanks for your great question! > > > > I think this is a bug of the current model, there should be a list in a > rib to maintain the nexthops of the rib. > > > > Regarding your question: “How can we add a Nexthop without informing the > parent Route?” Yes, a nexthop can be created without informing the parent > routes. In the current design, the nexthop is decoupled from the routes. A > nexthop can be shared by multiple routes or is dedicated to a single route. > > > > Best regards, > > Mach > > > > *From:* i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Edwin Cordeiro > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:44 PM > *To:* i2rs > *Subject:* [i2rs] Problem using rib-data-model RPC with rib-info-model > Information (draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-05 + > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08) > > > > Hello all, > > > > When trying to implement I2RS we are faced the following problem: > > > > In draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-05#section-2.5 the RPC offer the > following Nexthop operations: > > +---x nh-add > > | +---w input > > | | +---w rib-name string > > | | +---w nexthop-id? uint32 > > | | +---w sharing-flag? boolean > > | | +---w (nexthop-type)? > > | | ... > > | +--ro output > > | +--ro result uint32 > > | +--ro reason? string > > | +--ro nexthop-id? uint32 > > +---x nh-delete > > +---w input > > | +---w rib-name string > > | +---w nexthop-id? uint32 > > | +---w sharing-flag? boolean > > | +---w (nexthop-type)? > > | ... > > +--ro output > > +--ro result uint32 > > +--ro reason? string > > > > In these operations the Nexthop is directly connected to a RIB, but > in draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08#section-2: RIB(s) contains Route(s) > and Route(s) contains Nexthop(s): > > > > routing-instance > > | | > > | | > > 0..N | | 1..N > > | | > > interface(s) RIB(s) > > | > > | > > | 0..N > > | > > route(s) > > | | | > > +---------+ | +----------+ > > | | | > > 0..N | | | > > route-attribute match nexthop > > | > > ... > > > > Our questions are: > > - How can we add a Nexthop without informing the parent Route? > > - Looking at the RIB grammar (draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08#section-6) > the Nexthop is also attached to a Route. Shouldn't Nexthop be part of RIB? > Maybe something like: > > > > <rib> ::= <RIB_NAME> <rib-family> > > [<route> ... ] > > [<nexthop> ...] > > [ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK] > > > > routing-instance > > | | > > | | > > 0..N | | 1..N > > | | > > interface(s) RIB(s) > > | | 0..N > > | +--------------+ > > 0..N | | > > | | > > route(s) ------> nexthop(s) > > | | 1..N > > +---------+ | > > | | > > 0..N | | > > route-attribute match > > | > > ... > > > > If we misunderstood the model, could someone please explain why our > understanding is incorrect? > > > > Best Regards, > > > Edwin Cordeiro > > >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
