IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (added rtg-wg)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EA01A00EA for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:03:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 LLmfXEeDzc_Z for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B66FA1A008F for <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:03:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1118; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1423782188; x=1424991788; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=0ElNaKkaG9csZuxLWM2iESbl7K2DXLITQPnHw51gjY0=; b=JbEmaLCEr3TShClXsolD4bznQ0yzGUgNHG14MknHxhh7B4yGvISw4DM4 IYQgIordNTliOoHLRJOuFbAxI/6SNr7Qg/q/rDypGVrnZH1bKo0a4V5eD dC1ZuBxrrRLM9zE0oY6TkRf3tNq4AeztUPjT0HcCDdS2SefrGVz2w0PdM A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BCBQDuMN1U/5JdJa1bgwaBMIJ+xhYegQlDAQEBAQEBfIQTNEUSASQoBDAnBAENiDKhO5xkBpcqAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEbgRuOXoJpgUgBBI8piTOBGI4qgz4ig26CM38BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,567,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="123112240"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2015 23:02:46 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1CN2kKB001415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:02:46 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:02:46 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>, Routing YANG <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, "rtg-wg@ietf.org" <rtg-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: rtg-cfg hierachy (added rtg-wg)
Thread-Index: AQHQRxgDcLX6JBuw8kGWTc72ij8ZyQ==
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:02:45 +0000
Message-ID: <D1029B42.E4EA%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <623985B9C54B8B46A1BF9A6C9BE04B51@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/4XhYIkDaatIKlZRhWRvqWKe6_mw>
Cc: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (added rtg-wg)
X-BeenThere: rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"List to discuss coordination between the Routing related YANG models\"" <rtg-yang-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-yang-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:03:12 -0000

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email