Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy corrected)

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

Thanks Thomas for the clarification.

I’d like to then suggest we change the rtg-cfg model hierarchy to reflect
what most routing device implementations.
There is a RIB (you can call it a default-RIB if you like) for every
Address Family (AF). Multiple RIBs per AF is not widely implemented and I
don’t see it becoming more prevalent. Hence, I agree it should be a
feature. The one implementation I’m familiar with is multiple topology
routing (e.g., RFC 4915), where RIB corresponds to a FIB that is selected
based on packet marking. Does anyone have any other examples?

This would imply that RIBs are within a routing-instance and that
routing-protocols within the routing-instance can operate on these RIBs.
There is no requirement connect RIBs to routing-protocols or to form
connections between RIBs.

This would give us a high-level hierarchy of:

rw routing-instance* [name]
      |  +--rw address-family
      |  |  |--rw default-rib* [address-family]
      |  |  +--rw non-default-ribs (feature)
      |  +--rw routing-protocols
      |     +―--rw routing-protocol* [type name]

I intensionally left out the interfaces since I don’t like some models
augmenting or referencing the ietf-interface list and others augmenting or
referencing the list in our rtg-cfg draft.

Thanks,
Acee




On 2/18/15, 6:36 AM, "Thomas Morin" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>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
>>
>>
>>
>