Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg

Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> Wed, 21 October 2015 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rjs@rob.sh>
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 87A7A1A8712; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 dS6y4aeAu4f3; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 176051A8711; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2601:681:201:5165:3c38:7adb:87c3:3db8] (helo=piccolo.local) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rjs@rob.sh>) id 1ZotPX-00067T-V5; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:26:36 +0100
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:26:49 -0600
From: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <etPan.56279299.3a0e4920.12fd@piccolo.local>
In-Reply-To: <D2458D0F.36813%acee@cisco.com>
References: <7E24547E-B42B-46E2-AF76-F7639D61963F@nic.cz> <D23D3103.34500%acee@cisco.com> <D2429721.34A0E%acee@cisco.com> <DBF22257-A7A2-4679-927A-EBCC1022FE13@nic.cz> <D242C30E.34C2A%acee@cisco.com> <m27fmowezi.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz> <D2458D0F.36813%acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail Beta (334)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="56279299_465d6579_12fd"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/NNEMtl_jzWmR6RrFtjspkQo34yI>
Cc: Routing YANG <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?Q?i2rs=40ietf.org?=" <i2rs@ietf.org>, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:27:02 -0000

On 15 October 2015 at 15:13:38, Acee Lindem (acee) (acee@cisco.com) wrote:

Do we really see associating the same interface with different 
routing-instances for IPv4 and IPv6? I can seem to remember the use case 
and it does add complexity forever. 


At least two of the operators for whom I have worked utilise this functionality (providing separate L3VPNs for IPv6 and IPv4) - so in my experience, it is not possible to make this simplification.

r.