Dean Bogdanovic <[email protected]> writes: > On Feb 23, 2015, at 8:05 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 > > Lada, > > Not sure what are you are getting at. In Junos you create rib-groups
I am trying to figure out whether it is absolutely safe to assume that every RIB can be confined to a single routing instance - Acee proposed to make "ribs" a child of "routing-instance" whereas now it is global (a child of "routing"). Lada > and within rib-groups multiple RIBs can be specified. A RIB group is a > way to have a routing protocol, place information in multiple route > tables. And then you are exporting from rib-group RIBs to RIBs within > routing-instances. Or vice versa, importing from RIBs in > routing-instances into rib-groups. > > This is a special case in my opinion. > > Dean >> >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
