IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> Thu, 27 August 2015 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rjs@rob.sh>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0601C1A039B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 JgVnK0MACHaA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067771A6FEA for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [96.22.157.164] (helo=corretto) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rjs@rob.sh>) id 1ZV1IU-0007J3-47; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:49:10 +0100
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:49:22 -0400
From: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <etPan.55df4da2.2df263ea.1ef8@corretto>
In-Reply-To: <8539636D-F2CC-49D5-A103-7A20AABB2843@nic.cz>
References: <etPan.55df172a.4f663465.1ef8@corretto.local> <m2oahssqoz.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz> <etPan.55df2d24.79a00675.1ef8@corretto> <8539636D-F2CC-49D5-A103-7A20AABB2843@nic.cz>
X-Mailer: Airmail Beta (323)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="55df4da2_70f6581_1ef8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/zzaSQqKzYcBkoqYD-8K0M1CVooI>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:49:30 -0000

Lada,


On August 27, 2015 at 12:54:39, Ladislav Lhotka (lhotka@nic.cz) wrote:

We certainly need *some* structure, and since there was a requirement to support multiple routing instances, a list of them seems natural. 
Great, we agree that we need some structure like we have for routing elsewhere.

Can you point me towards any proposal other than draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure or draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model–00 for this structure?

Already, implementors are having problems with this - because existing modules that are pretty mature (ietf-bgp for example), need more functionality than is in ietf-routing to make usable multi-VRF systems, let alone multi-routing-instance. If there were some structure, we could understand how these models need to be augmented to support the use cases. I’ll come back to the case of how I configure something that is a L2 virtual forwarding instance, that uses has a L3 IP interface within it.

On the latter comments in your mail, I place little importance on obsoleting existing RFCs, I care about:

Primarily: whether the existing models let me configure things that I need to on my network (or form a suitable base for doing so).
Secondary: impact to existing implementations where these models are actually usable to some external consumer.
Kind regards,
r.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email