Hi Jeff, > On Jul 27, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Acee, > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 05:49:28PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> I’ve read all the E-mails in this thread and I think I agree with Stephane >> in that a route has one or more tags that are advertised within the >> protocols and are installed into the appropriate RIB. This is the most >> straight forward and useful application of tags. >> >> I think having two types of tags for routes (local and IGP) will only add >> complexity and confusion. > > What do you think the model should say about redistribution of tags that are > out of range of the protocol in question?
This is one reason why I believe the redistribution or import policies should be within the protocol themselves rather than external to the protocol. There is less to constrain if you have per protocol redistribution. Now, dependent on where we end up with factoring the common policy, there may still be stuff that needs to be checked. > > What do you think, if anything, the model should have in the way of > constraints on this scenario? Note that this is a leading question since we > don't get constraints on operational state until yang 1.1, if I recall > correctly. I’m not sure why we need constraints for operational data in this case. Thanks, Acee > > -- Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
