"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> writes: > Thanks Thomas for the clarification. > > I’d like to then suggest we change the rtg-cfg model hierarchy to reflect > what most routing device implementations. > There is a RIB (you can call it a default-RIB if you like) for every > Address Family (AF). Multiple RIBs per AF is not widely implemented and I > don’t see it becoming more prevalent. Hence, I agree it should be a > feature. The one implementation I’m familiar with is multiple topology > routing (e.g., RFC 4915), where RIB corresponds to a FIB that is selected > based on packet marking. Does anyone have any other examples?
Another example could be a separate RIB for RPF, to be used e.g. by PIM. > > This would imply that RIBs are within a routing-instance and that It seems (Junos experts, please confirm) that in Junos user-defined routing tables can be specified both globally and per routing-instance: http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos14.2/topics/reference/configuration-statement/export-rib-edit-routing-options.html >From the viewpoint of the data model, I think it is generally easier for an implementation to restrict access to each RIB to a single routing instance than allow different routing instances to share a RIB, if each RIB would have to be inside a routing instance. Lada > routing-protocols within the routing-instance can operate on these RIBs. > There is no requirement connect RIBs to routing-protocols or to form > connections between RIBs. > > This would give us a high-level hierarchy of: > > rw routing-instance* [name] > | +--rw address-family > | | |--rw default-rib* [address-family] > | | +--rw non-default-ribs (feature) > | +--rw routing-protocols > | +―--rw routing-protocol* [type name] > > I intensionally left out the interfaces since I don’t like some models > augmenting or referencing the ietf-interface list and others augmenting or > referencing the list in our rtg-cfg draft. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > On 2/18/15, 6:36 AM, "Thomas Morin" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>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 >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
