Hi Acee, Lada,
It seems that my comment that you quote was more related to filters than
to routing tables, and indeed, *filters* were moved from "router" to
"global" in revision -03 that followed my review.
Additionally, Lada, you say that based on my comments "in rev. -03 the
list of RIBs (then called "routing-table") was the moved out of the
routing instance (then called "router") and became global.". But if I
look at -03, "routing-table" is still a child of "router". The change
to make "routing-table" global was made in -05.
I guess you need to find out what was the motivation for the change in
-05, a few months after my initial comments were address.
Best,
-Thomas
2015-02-13, Acee Lindem (acee):
Hi Lada, Thomas,
On 2/13/15, 5:10 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> writes:
Hi Thomas,
It is my understanding that the RIBs were moved out of the
routing-instance in response to your comment that a RIB would need to be
attached to multiple routing instances. I don¹t agree with this
model. I
Acee refers to this comment that Thomas made in his review of
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-02 on 2012-03-23:
"Allowing multiple "routers" is a good starting point for using these
specs in the context of RFC4364 (MPLS/BGP IP VPNs). However, if I
understand correctly Yang syntax, the way the filters are defined would
not work in the context of RFC4364, where a BGP routing instance in the
master "router" exports selected routes in each of the routing table of
each VPN (VRF). The VRF also export routes to the master instance."
And indeed, in rev. -03 the list of RIBs (then called "routing-table")
was the moved out of the routing instance (then called "router") and
became global.
Then do you agree to move the RIBs back into the routing-instance? Both
the BGP YANG drafts model L3VPN definitions under the corresponding
address family in BGP.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhdankin-idr-bgp-cfg-00.txt
Thanks,
Acee
Lada
believe that a routing instance implies a VRF, virtual router or
something
in between and that a RIB should be associated with one and only one
routing instance. Additionally, I feel that RIBs are basically passive
entities with respect to import/export of routes between RIBs in the
same
or other routing-instances. Rather, all import/export is under the
control
of a routing-protocol. For example, this would be handled by a BGP
routing-protocol instance for L3VPNs.
I¹d like to get the opinions of others on this fundamental aspect of the
rtg-cfg model.
Thanks,
Acee
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
