Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 03 April 2019 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8A31200C3; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 04:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EG3irqeGqvJe; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 04:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DE312008B; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 04:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 600011AE02BD; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 13:04:56 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 13:04:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20190403.130458.1547365482806443643.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
Cc: acee@cisco.com, lhotka@nic.cz, netmod@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR03MB38281F7C5CF7C09C32066FB69D570@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR03MB38286521B6CDFD36D173C6889D570@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20190403.123345.1599705387341112249.mbj@tail-f.com> <AM0PR03MB38281F7C5CF7C09C32066FB69D570@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/-h1AIHLYd5zB9SuL6-_rC57vpek>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 11:05:01 -0000

Hi,


Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>; wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Lots of thanks for an interesting input.
> 
> I have noticed that Appendix A in RFC
> 8349<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8349#appendix-A>  defines the
> key for static IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routes as
> “destination-prefix”.

Right (to be precise, the key is defined in the YANG models in section
8 and 9).


> draft-ietf-rtgwg-
> yang-rib-extend<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01>
> claims that it augments the model defined in 8349, therefore, to the
> best of my understanding, it uses the same key for station IPv4 and
> IPv6 unicast routes.

Correct.


> At the same time Appendix A in this draft does not define any keys
> for the read-only RIB.
> 
> Can you explain this controversy?

Not sure there's a controversy.  The static route list is how you
configure static routes, and the RIB is the operational state of all
routes (static and others).  Two different things.

The MIB had a single table to show routes and write routes.  I don't
think the persistency of the routes you wrote into the MIB was
defined; perhaps these can be viewed as being "static".


/martin


> 
> 
> 
> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
> 
> Sasha
> 
> 
> 
> Office: +972-39266302
> 
> Cell:      +972-549266302
> 
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>;
> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:34 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>;
> Cc: acee@cisco.com; lhotka@nic.cz; netmod@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, could you please explain the rationale for changing the
> 
> > data model that has been defined in RFC 4292 (where both the
> 
> > destination prefix and the next hop have been parts of the index in
> 
> > the appropriate MIB table) ?
> 
> >
> 
> > The side effect of this change is that it is not backward-compatible
> 
> > with multiple existing RFC 4292-compliant RIB implementations:
> 
> >
> 
> > -          Retrieval of such a RIB using YANG requires a stateful mapper that
> 
> >            merges multiple RIB entries with the same destination prefix and
> 
> >            different “simple” NH into a single entry with the
> 
> >            next-hop-list
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the "route" list in the rib doesn't have any keys.  This means that you can report several entries with the same destination prefix.  So I think that this design is compatible with the MIB design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________