Hi Thomas, I apologize for a late response, I was on holiday last week.
Thomas Morin <[email protected]> writes: > 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. Right, but each filter could then be specified for either "connected-routing-table" or "recipient-routing-table", and if the 'remote' routing table is in a different routing instance, it IMO makes more sense to have routing tables (RIBs) as global objects accessible to all routing instances. In fact, even if RIBs are routing-instance specific, it will still be possible to access a RIB in a foreign routing instance, it will just be more laborious - one will have to specify the target routing instance & RIB. Also, names of RIBs will no more be unique system-wide. > > 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. Yes, you are right, it seems the immediate motivation for this change was this review by Martin Bjorklund: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg06962.html Thanks, Lada > > 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 >> >> >> > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
