"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > On 4/3/19, 7:27 AM, "Alexander Vainshtein" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Martin, > Lots of thanks for a prompt response. > > My reading of your response is that, if you need multiple static > routes with the same destination but different next hops, you > configure them as a single route with next-hop-list, but what you see > when you retrieve the RIB may be multiple individual routes, each with > its own simple next hop. Or it may be something else, since no keys > have been defined in the read-only representation of the RIB. > > Is my reading correct? > > No - you'd see a single route and next-hop-list with the alternatives > when it is retrieved.
Do you think it would be a violation of the spec if an implementation expanded this into several route entries? If yes, is this specified? /martin > > Thanks, > Acee > > > Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, > Sasha > > Office: +972-39266302 > Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: [email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 2:05 PM > To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 > > Hi, > > > Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> wrote: > > Martin, > > > > Lots of thanks for an interesting input. > > > > I have noticed that Appendix A in RFC > > 8349<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8349#appendix-A> defines the key > > for static IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routes as “destination-prefix”. > > Right (to be precise, the key is defined in the YANG models in section > 8 and 9). > > > > draft-ietf-rtgwg- > > yang-rib-extend<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib- > > extend-01> claims that it augments the model defined in 8349, > > therefore, to the best of my understanding, it uses the same key for > > station IPv4 and > > IPv6 unicast routes. > > Correct. > > > > At the same time Appendix A in this draft does not define any keys for > > the read-only RIB. > > > > Can you explain this controversy? > > Not sure there's a controversy. The static route list is how you > configure static routes, and the RIB is the operational state of all > routes (static and others). Two different things. > > The MIB had a single table to show routes and write routes. I don't > think the persistency of the routes you wrote into the MIB was > defined; perhaps these can be viewed as being "static". > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > Office: +972-39266302 > > > > Cell: +972-549266302 > > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:34 PM > > To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Alexander Vainshtein > > > <[email protected]<mailto:[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 > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > _____ > > > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains > > information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI > > Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please > > inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and > > all copies thereof. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > _____ > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains > information which is > CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have > received this > transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and > then delete the original > and all copies thereof. > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
