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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Tue, 13 October 2015 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EB61B32FC; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXsVMG-o43hU; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 336351B46DE; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3524; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444749654; x=1445959254; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=80jwaM68mSdPypeimEECDoDNSlBdPsx6bWnp2x0SPiQ=; b=Eii3TyAfxaiq6jbBH2gl6tr5Tcdbu0u42RH84iwv9m6ZHp/gyuYzC6nl v6XuCJH5PHPRfrJu4yygRzKV/EBjE8tM+kJDF3rtt8820SqH8VLwtjrZi pHhVy+fw19mqDQWeGMGLShYu8+IKswhobFKIMqEpkUaLw5LMIo/LIfFX7 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,678,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="35305018"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2015 15:20:53 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9DFKrac030734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:20:53 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:20:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:20:39 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Ladislav Lhotka <>, "" <>, NETMOD WG <>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg
Thread-Index: AQHRAmpn2WDjXB7SH0yyXI3vdDB1jJ5jMMMAgAZwt4A=
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:20:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Routing YANG <>, Routing WG <>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"List to discuss coordination between the Routing related YANG models\"" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:24 -0000

Hi Lada, NETMOD, 

So I think we should move forward this ietf-rtg-cfg so that it can be
augmented and other work can move forward. We are still in disagreement
with respect to routing-instance/interface configuration.

    - We feel the IPv4/IPv6 interfaces should reference the
routing-instance in their config state. This is consistent with
    - You feel that the routing-instance should have a list of leaf-ref’s
to the interface. You believe the leaf-ref provides a level of validation
due to the fact that references can be confined to routing-instance
references. However, heretofore, no models are referencing the interface
leaf-refs in the list.

Other than the Routing YANG Design Team having chosen the first option -
are there any other opinions?


On 10/9/15, 9:00 AM, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
< on behalf of>; wrote:

>Hi Lada, 
>I2RS is not chartered to do the base models. There are other routing
>models that reference routing-cfg and even in-progress implementations.
>On 10/9/15, 4:13 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
>< on behalf of>; wrote:
>>I am sorry for cross-posting but I think it is high time to decide the
>>relationship between the data models in i2rs-rib-data-model and
>>netmod-routing-cfg I-Ds because they clearly target the same management
>>data in a router. I can see three possible scenarios:
>>1. The i2rs-rib module will be modified to augment
>This would seem to be the obvious choice.
>>2. The scope of ietf-routing will be changed so that it would address
>>only host routing and simple routers. The modelling work for advanced
>>routers will be done elsewhere.
>>3. The work on netmod-routing-cfg will be stopped.
>A fourth option would be for me to take over ownership, move the work to
>the RTG WG, and we’d recruit some strong authors/reviewers from operators
>and other vendors (involving the ADs in selection).
>>Thanks, Lada
>>Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>>PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>>netmod mailing list
>netmod mailing list