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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

On 2/24/15, 1:28 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>[I'm behind as usual and this may have been discussed already.]
>
>On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:07:11PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Independent of the hierarchy, I think an interface should be associated
>> with one and only routing-instance. I know of no implementation that
>> allows this (including the use case of separate instances for IPv4 and
>> IPv6). 
>
>While junos does have the interface as part of the routing instance
>interface hierarchy, you're also correct in that junos enforces that the
>interface is only associated with one instance.
>
>The question is with regard to generic modeling: Should a single unified
>interface model with the ability to associate the interface with the
>instance?  Should the instance refer to interfaces?
>
>My concern with making the interface model point to associated instances
>is
>how we handle versioning for unknown things that we may want to associate
>that interface with.  The interface model is something we want to be rock
>solid stable, not something that needs to be revised each time some new
>instancing mechanism is created.

Since what I¹m suggesting is having rtg-cfg augment the interface model, I
don¹t understand your concern. Why is the new model having a separate list
of interfaces any more ³rock solid² than the existing interface to
reference the associated routing instance?

My concern is much easier to understand - with existing configuration
information augmenting the RFC 7223 model and some new subset of
configuration information augmenting the interface list, we have a
bifurcated extension model. Independent of which way we decide to proceed,
this issue needs to be addressed lest we have confusion every time a new
model needs to augment interface configuration.

Acee 




>
>-- Jeff