[Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg draft

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 22:08 UTC

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>
Thread-Topic: rtg-cfg draft
Thread-Index: AQHQRxB2S+QjqnB8uUmcVO7eDFx1tA==
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:08:43 +0000
Message-ID: <D1028E99.E49D%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <75822E68F2E26D4BB2769ABCD81616A6@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/3c5RkK5KrOzcYlFOjT44V63nfCQ>
Cc: Routing YANG <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg draft
Precedence: list

Hi Thomas, 

It is my understanding that the RIBs were moved out of the
routing-instance in response to your comment that a RIB would need to be
attached to multiple routing instances. I don¹t agree with this model. I
believe that a routing instance implies a VRF, virtual router or something
in between and that a RIB should be associated with one and only one
routing instance. Additionally, I feel that RIBs are basically passive
entities with respect to import/export of routes between RIBs in the same
or other routing-instances. Rather, all import/export is under the control
of a routing-protocol. For example, this would be handled by a BGP
routing-protocol instance for L3VPNs.

I¹d like to get the opinions of others on this fundamental aspect of the
rtg-cfg model. 

Thanks,
Acee

[Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg draft Acee Lindem (acee)