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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 13 February 2015 18:28 UTC

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, 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: AQHQR7rrenVRnDWlhkOAaQleotgvoQ==
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:28:53 +0000
Message-ID: <D103AB26.E63E%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D1029B42.E4EA%acee@cisco.com> <m2mw4i9l62.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <m2mw4i9l62.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <B3782427DE24A24A9A60C91CAC868D11@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/HOjQrITFDXefRgA_5OMBHh4dYKI>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (added rtg-wg)
Precedence: list

Hi Lada, Thomas, 

On 2/13/15, 5:10 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> 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

[Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (added rtg-wg) Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (added rtg-… Ladislav Lhotka
Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (added rtg-… Acee Lindem (acee)