On 2/24/15, 1:28 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[I'm behind as usual and this may have been discussed already.] > >On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:07:11PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Independent of the hierarchy, I think an interface should be associated >> with one and only routing-instance. I know of no implementation that >> allows this (including the use case of separate instances for IPv4 and >> IPv6). > >While junos does have the interface as part of the routing instance >interface hierarchy, you're also correct in that junos enforces that the >interface is only associated with one instance. > >The question is with regard to generic modeling: Should a single unified >interface model with the ability to associate the interface with the >instance? Should the instance refer to interfaces? > >My concern with making the interface model point to associated instances >is >how we handle versioning for unknown things that we may want to associate >that interface with. The interface model is something we want to be rock >solid stable, not something that needs to be revised each time some new >instancing mechanism is created. Since what I¹m suggesting is having rtg-cfg augment the interface model, I don¹t understand your concern. Why is the new model having a separate list of interfaces any more ³rock solid² than the existing interface to reference the associated routing instance? My concern is much easier to understand - with existing configuration information augmenting the RFC 7223 model and some new subset of configuration information augmenting the interface list, we have a bifurcated extension model. Independent of which way we decide to proceed, this issue needs to be addressed lest we have confusion every time a new model needs to augment interface configuration. Acee > >-- Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
