I believe the fact that we are having trouble resolving this is that the
model is wrong. I would propose the following:

   1. Remove the interface list completely from rtf-cfg configuration.
   2. Augment the RFC 7223 to include a reference to a routing-instance.
An interface should be part of one and only one routing-instance.
   3. Provide a list of interfaces in the operational state in the rtg-cfg
model. 

One reason I'm proposing this change is that I believe a routing-instance
implies an IPv4/IPv6 address space and the interfaces list MUST NOT be
disjoint from the assigned addresses (refer to RFC 7277). If you want to
have a list of interfaces in the routing-instance, you should deprecate
RFC 7277 or, at least, say that it only applies to the default instance.

In all fairness, Lada disagrees with me on this point and wants the
flexibility of associating an interface with multiple routing-instances.
Additionally, he feels that the list inside the routing-instance will
facilitate better interface selection checking. I don¹t see the latter as
an issue as the same checking could be applied when an attempt is made to
augment the RFC 7223 interface.

Thanks,
Acee 

   

On 1/14/15, 12:46 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:43:29PM +0000, Xufeng Liu wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>> 
>> The concatenated string format is actually what we plan to do. However,
>>to me, it is more like a hack than an engineered solution. The model
>>fails to capture such a relationship properly.
>>
>
>If your interface names are no unique, I would assume that you will
>face other issues as well. For example, one may use an interface name
>to disambiguate link-local addresses. I am not sure how that works if
>your interface name is not unique.
>
>/js
>
>-- 
>Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
>Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to