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

[Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>
>