Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] issue :R03: assignment of interfaces to routing instances

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I believe the fact that we are having trouble resolving this is that the
> model is wrong. I would propose the following:

I don't agree the model is wrong. In fact, I belive in Junos CLI it is
done exactly the same way, e.g.

  set interface fe-0/0/2 unit 0 family inet address 6.6.6.5/24

  set routing-instances blue-vr interface fe-0/0/2.0

(IP address is configured in the interface subtree, and an interface is
assigned to a VRF in the routing-instance subtree).

I believe the troubles we are having are due to the different logic in
the CLIs of the two major routing platforms.

Lada

>
>    1. Remove the interface list completely from rtf-cfg configuration.
>    2. Augment the RFC 7223 to include a reference to a routing-instance.
> An interface should be part of one and only one routing-instance.
>    3. Provide a list of interfaces in the operational state in the rtg-cfg
> model. 
>
> One reason I'm proposing this change is that I believe a routing-instance
> implies an IPv4/IPv6 address space and the interfaces list MUST NOT be
> disjoint from the assigned addresses (refer to RFC 7277). If you want to
> have a list of interfaces in the routing-instance, you should deprecate
> RFC 7277 or, at least, say that it only applies to the default instance.
>
> In all fairness, Lada disagrees with me on this point and wants the
> flexibility of associating an interface with multiple routing-instances.
> Additionally, he feels that the list inside the routing-instance will
> facilitate better interface selection checking. I don¹t see the latter as
> an issue as the same checking could be applied when an attempt is made to
> augment the RFC 7223 interface.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee 
>
>    
>
> On 1/14/15, 12:46 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 04:43:29PM +0000, Xufeng Liu wrote:
>>> Hi Andy,
>>> 
>>> The concatenated string format is actually what we plan to do. However,
>>>to me, it is more like a hack than an engineered solution. The model
>>>fails to capture such a relationship properly.
>>>
>>
>>If your interface names are no unique, I would assume that you will
>>face other issues as well. For example, one may use an interface name
>>to disambiguate link-local addresses. I am not sure how that works if
>>your interface name is not unique.
>>
>>/js
>>
>>-- 
>>Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
>>Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>

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