Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeffrey,


> On May 1, 2023, at 5:05 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Yingzhen,
>  I can go with that if that’s what the authors/WG’s preference, but my preference would be to cover it in the base specification itself. What’s the harm?
>  Anyway, this is not a blocking comment.

The way the backup static route use case is handled is by configuring multiple next-hops with different preferences. This is one of the most useful
 extensions provided by this augmentation. 

Thanks,
Acee


>  Thanks.
> Jeffrey
>  From: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:01 PM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16
>  [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>  Hi Jeffrey,  Considering this is not commonly used, I'd suggest if someone really needs it they can do an easy augmentation using the grouping defined in this draft. 
>  Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>  On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Yingzhen,
>  From: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:46 PM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16
>  [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>  Hi Jeffrey,
>  Thanks for the review, please see my answers below.
>  Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>  On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:43 AM Zhaohui Zhang via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> I have the following one nit comment and one question:
> 
>   augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/"
>     + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/"
>     + "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop"
>   {
>     description
>       "Augment the multiple next hops with repair path.";
>     uses repair-path;
>   }
> 
> The description is slightly misleading. It is to agument a single next-hop in
> the next-hop-list, not "multiple next hops".
> [Yingzhen] how about: "Augment the next-hop with a repair path."
>  Zzh> Good.
>  Shouldn't the repair path be applicable to static routes as well?
> [Yingzhen]: Theoretically you can have a repair-path for a static route, but have you seen this in deployment? 
>  Zzh> Whether anyone implemented/deployed it that way, I think it’s quite reasonable and desired to have it covered in the spec. For example, a static route could be using if1 by default but if2 as backup (in case if1 is down).
>  Zzh> Jeffrey
>  Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only