IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 14 January 2015 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 EA2351A8A08 for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:37:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, J_CHICKENPOX_29=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 Rf8EAOXdegLD for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2C3F1A6F96 for <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:95fa:15dc:851e:55fe] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:95fa:15dc:851e:55fe]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB7CE14050F; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:37:36 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1421228256; bh=aPf0gZIxo6RlnZoRLb9FCuzfaJH6WdtzHtNEzCElo2c=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=x9mogBJQTBI/lHkxM2cUmHSTXetOX3Uv5LAQfhu/yCapFOxTdoAxv7f+iLVs9w1/O ZyZTFxHk7UMNJ3oJxYARKIA9nbL0iKgOqhsDQ1Wz2+xC+WCKhuNct900ZRlKpMcdmj 9zOMkvvF7d2gp8pVWWly9W39sbGB909oMPVx34O8=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20150113212732.GD1545@elstar.local>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:37:36 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <23976026-499F-4C9C-844A-DB53BE244992@nic.cz>
References: <m2wq6j5skf.fsf@nic.cz> <D0D9CB3F.B6C0%acee@cisco.com> <8022061D-AB8F-4A97-84E7-A6E4F898F57F@nic.cz> <AAB1CC9C17CBA440BDFA169056B93B9EB10521@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <35023717-7EE8-4F45-B2F4-B24E0F86FA5A@nic.cz> <20150113212732.GD1545@elstar.local>
To: =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_Sch=C3=B6nw=C3=A4lder?= <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/SyIhv1DE-Bd-roU46XhalOme48c>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem \(acee\)" <acee@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] issue :R03: assignment of interfaces to routing instances
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: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:37:41 -0000

> On 13 Jan 2015, at 22:27, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 05:42:38PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> 
>>> 2. Add an attribute routing-instance-ref (type leafref) in interface to point to the name attribute (key) of routing-instance.
>> 
>> This is IMO a good idea, we would then have links in both directions.
>> 
> 
> I assume this would be config false state data, otherwise we only add

Yes, right. I’d propose to configure this assignment under routing-instance and the have the reference(s) to the routing-instance as an (optional) item in if:interface entries (in their state data).

> configuration complexity for no real value. And this likely would have
> to be a leaf-list.

This depends on whether we conclude that the assignment has to be disjoint or not. I support the latter option, so yes, I’d also prefer to have a leaf-list for this purpose.

Lada

> 
>>> 3. Make the new routing-instance-ref added above to be part of the key, i.e. create a composite key <name, routing-instance-ref> for interface.
>> 
>> This is not possible because:
>> 
>> - the key of the if:interface list cannot be extended by additional components;
>> 
>> - if:interface is a flat list that contains interfaces of all layers, but an assignment to a routing-instance makes sense only for L3 interfaces;
>> 
>> - YANG module ietf-interfaces is intended for all kinds of devices, including those that don’t implement ietf-routing.
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email