I have two rather substantive comments on the draft we will be discussing in tomorrow¹s rtgwg meeting.
1. The draft includes stub definitions for import/export routing filters with the guidance that these should be augmented. I would like to see these removed from this draft as the whole area of routing policy should be worked on by a multi-vendor team similar to what is being done for the routing protocols. I don¹t think the direction should be set for routing policy based on these stub definitions. 2. The draft defines a list of interfaces that correspond to a routing-instance. The routing-instance binds the physical interface (RFC RFC 7273) to an address space. However, the IPv4/IPv6 interface addresses are specified via the YANG model in RFC 7277. I really don¹t like this disjoint specification. Rather, "/if:interfaces/if:interface" in RFC 7273 should be augmented in a reference to the routing instance. Additionally, the neighbor discovery definitions should augment the ipv6 container in RFC 7277). I also have one question for the RTG WG - do we want this model to specify the precise forwarding behavior? The draft states that ³backup next-hops are only used if no primary next-hops exist." This will relegate all implementations to the same IPFRR behavior. I don¹t think that this should be specified in this draft. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
