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 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 _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
