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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 03 April 2019 10:33 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 70F041200B9; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 03:33:47 -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 aHulfipmcm3c; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 03:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9F812008B; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 03:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DDB01AE02BD; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:33:43 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 12:33:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20190403.123345.1599705387341112249.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: <AM0PR03MB38286521B6CDFD36D173C6889D570@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR03MB3828CD6E93236076142079109D560@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <399C7547-D8A6-4938-B5F2-9F6F7DFA795B@cisco.com> <AM0PR03MB38286521B6CDFD36D173C6889D570@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/tTwNCMyWIPK9FcmcJNK8l_poAOk>
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 10:33:47 -0000

Hi,

Alexander Vainshtein <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