IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (PLEASE REPLY TO THIS ONE WITH THE CORRECT MAIL ALIASES)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 13 February 2015 18:31 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 8EA581A00E6; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:31:25 -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 IDUyZe-DGfOf; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:31:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4811A0060; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:31:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2908; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1423852282; x=1425061882; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Bf1V+J5luEW75fjWeOKHOhy9PK4H8D8Hc+8KXcFrUpY=; b=HCkd3zbUEgTGxx6uw3seyVFW5MARBJLaIU2fNp9ggh6a0+a5ClE77zza swr59H81ppNxXM3jDRcTMan7bTvRVlHr2M949BnzM5Eeb4cHraUHpMRzv 0cLWrQM6vs3EEH3b88Gjb8msI/xJq36KMgE+uZRmdNZEto0tBAPBK6fwb s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFALlC3lStJA2I/2dsb2JhbABbgwZSWgSCfr8shXEeeEMBAQEBAQF8hA0CBDRXAQgcKAQwJwQBEgmIJA2hJpxkBpcfAQEIIoEbiXGEHAEBHIMcgUgFjzSJNYEYgweLKIM+IoIHF4FQbwGBCjl/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,572,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="395957513"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2015 18:31:22 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1DIVLv5027835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:31:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:31:21 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, Routing YANG <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: rtg-cfg hierachy (PLEASE REPLY TO THIS ONE WITH THE CORRECT MAIL ALIASES)
Thread-Index: AQHQR7tDYrs6RMzmJ0iGnkpid0CpeQ==
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:31:20 +0000
Message-ID: <D103AD28.E652%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: <BB49104534C1144DB807A51C0D45FDD9@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/KJTxVYFh0zKlWpPNxLqEKmNgE8I>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (PLEASE REPLY TO THIS ONE WITH THE CORRECT MAIL ALIASES)
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:31:25 -0000

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email