Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy corrected)

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Dean Bogdanovic <[e-mail]> writes:

> On Feb 23, 2015, at 8:05 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> This would imply that RIBs are within a routing-instance and that
>> 
>> It seems (Junos experts, please confirm) that in Junos user-defined
>> routing tables can be specified both globally and per routing-instance:
>> 
>> http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos14.2/topics/reference/configuration-statement/export-rib-edit-routing-options.html
>
> Lada,
>
> Not sure what are you are getting at. In Junos you create rib-groups

I am trying to figure out whether it is absolutely safe to assume that
every RIB can be confined to a single routing instance - Acee proposed
to make "ribs" a child of "routing-instance" whereas now it is global (a
child of "routing").

Lada

> and within rib-groups multiple RIBs can be specified. A RIB group is a
> way to have a routing protocol, place information in multiple route
> tables. And then you are exporting from rib-group RIBs to RIBs within
> routing-instances. Or vice versa, importing from RIBs in
> routing-instances into rib-groups.

>
> This is a special case in my opinion.
>
> Dean
>> 
>>> routing-protocols within the routing-instance can operate on these RIBs.
>>> There is no requirement connect RIBs to routing-protocols or to form
>>> connections between RIBs.
>>> 
>>> This would give us a high-level hierarchy of:
>>> 
>>> rw routing-instance* [name]
>>>      |  +--rw address-family
>>>      |  |  |--rw default-rib* [address-family]
>>>      |  |  +--rw non-default-ribs (feature)
>>>      |  +--rw routing-protocols
>>>      |     +―--rw routing-protocol* [type name]
>>> 
>>> I intensionally left out the interfaces since I don’t like some models
>>> augmenting or referencing the ietf-interface list and others augmenting or
>>> referencing the list in our rtg-cfg draft.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/18/15, 6:36 AM, "Thomas Morin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Acee, Lada,
>>>> 
>>>> It seems that my comment that you quote was more related to filters than
>>>> to routing tables, and indeed, *filters* were moved from "router" to
>>>> "global" in revision -03 that followed my review.
>>>> 
>>>> Additionally, Lada, you say that based on my comments "in rev. -03 the
>>>> list of RIBs (then called "routing-table") was the moved out of the
>>>> routing instance (then called "router") and became global.". But if I
>>>> look at -03, "routing-table" is still a child of "router".  The change
>>>> to make "routing-table" global was made in -05.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess you need to find out what was the motivation for the change in
>>>> -05, a few months after my initial comments were address.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> -Thomas
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-02-13, Acee Lindem (acee):
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Lada, Thomas,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/13/15, 5:10 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Acee refers to this comment that Thomas made in his review of
>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-02 on 2012-03-23:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Allowing multiple "routers" is a good starting point for using these
>>>>>> specs in the context of RFC4364 (MPLS/BGP IP VPNs). However, if I
>>>>>> understand correctly Yang syntax, the way the filters are defined would
>>>>>> not work in the context of RFC4364, where a BGP routing instance in the
>>>>>> master "router" exports selected routes in each of the routing table of
>>>>>> each VPN (VRF).  The VRF also export routes to the master instance."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And indeed, in rev. -03 the list of RIBs (then called "routing-table")
>>>>>> was the moved out of the routing instance (then called "router") and
>>>>>> became global.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then do you agree to move the RIBs back into the routing-instance? Both
>>>>> the BGP YANG drafts model L3VPN definitions under the corresponding
>>>>> address family in BGP.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model-00.txt
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhdankin-idr-bgp-cfg-00.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Acee
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lada
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>>>>>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C