Hi, Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> wrote:
[...] > Meanwhile, could you please explain the rationale for changing the > data model that has been defined in RFC 4292 (where both the > destination prefix and the next hop have been parts of the index in > the appropriate MIB table) ? > > The side effect of this change is that it is not backward-compatible > with multiple existing RFC 4292-compliant RIB implementations: > > - Retrieval of such a RIB using YANG requires a stateful mapper that > merges multiple RIB entries with the same destination prefix and > different “simple” NH into a single entry with the > next-hop-list Note that the "route" list in the rib doesn't have any keys. This means that you can report several entries with the same destination prefix. So I think that this design is compatible with the MIB design. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
