"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> writes: > I believe the fact that we are having trouble resolving this is that the > model is wrong. I would propose the following:
I don't agree the model is wrong. In fact, I belive in Junos CLI it is done exactly the same way, e.g. set interface fe-0/0/2 unit 0 family inet address 6.6.6.5/24 set routing-instances blue-vr interface fe-0/0/2.0 (IP address is configured in the interface subtree, and an interface is assigned to a VRF in the routing-instance subtree). I believe the troubles we are having are due to the different logic in the CLIs of the two major routing platforms. Lada > > 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/> > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
