Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: Call for WG Adoption for draft-you-isis-flowspec-extensions-04

[<[e-mail]>]

Youjianjie <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hi Chris,
>> I agree if moving forward with this I think we need to look at GENAPP as well..
>>
>> Firs though I'd like to hear more on why intra-domain flowspec (or the
>> equivalent) can't simply be defined using a yang model.
>
> Do you mean disseminating FlowSpec rules by using I2RS? I think it could be an alternative. But They each have their pros and cons. If using routing protocol to disseminate FlowSpec rules, when networks change, FlowSpec rules could be flexible as route entries, i.e. without involvement of management devices.


I mean one would use netconf (or restconf, ...) and flowspec yang model to
configure ones routers with the flowspec data.

Can you explain more what you mean when talking about network changes?
The flowspec entries aren't changing when network changes occur.
If the originator changes them it knows it needs to configure the new
entries on the routers.

Again, this proposal just looks like configuring ones routers using a
routing protocol. If that's what we are doing I'd like it to be more
clearly understood, and then we can decide if this is what we think
routing protocols should be doing. :)

Thanks,
Chris.

>
> Thanks,
> Jianjie
>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris.