Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (added rtg-wg)

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

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.

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