Lada,
On August 27, 2015 at 12:54:39, Ladislav Lhotka ([email protected]) wrote: We certainly need *some* structure, and since there was a requirement to support multiple routing instances, a list of them seems natural. Great, we agree that we need some structure like we have for routing elsewhere. Can you point me towards any proposal other than draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure or draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model–00 for this structure? Already, implementors are having problems with this - because existing modules that are pretty mature (ietf-bgp for example), need more functionality than is in ietf-routing to make usable multi-VRF systems, let alone multi-routing-instance. If there were some structure, we could understand how these models need to be augmented to support the use cases. I’ll come back to the case of how I configure something that is a L2 virtual forwarding instance, that uses has a L3 IP interface within it. On the latter comments in your mail, I place little importance on obsoleting existing RFCs, I care about: Primarily: whether the existing models let me configure things that I need to on my network (or form a suitable base for doing so). Secondary: impact to existing implementations where these models are actually usable to some external consumer. Kind regards, r.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
