IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg draft hierarchy (Reply to this one)

Antoni Przygienda <antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com>
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 EB80A1A6F22; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:18:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 yZV_zBqip5DC; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D4471A1DBE; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:18:02 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79376d000000ceb-79-54dce0f7fe13
Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2D.68.03307.7F0ECD45; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:20:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:18:00 -0500
From: Antoni Przygienda <antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Routing YANG <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Thread-Topic: rtg-cfg draft hierarchy (Reply to this one)
Thread-Index: AQHQRxh1ZqTFjLUtMEu1r3b/ugmA/5ztozGw
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:18:00 +0000
Message-ID: <2E4BB27CAB87BF43B4207C0E55860F1824B724@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <D1029C03.E4F6%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1029C03.E4F6%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgu6PB3dCDP5NELKY/HYes8WFVXPZ LH4/vw1kvfnNbLF5+VoWB1aPKb83snosWfKTyWPT5TuMHj+OhQWwRHHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBl XD14jrXglkDF3sOt7A2MR3i7GDk5JARMJDbfXMoEYYtJXLi3ng3EFhI4wiixbG58FyMXkL2c UeLbrGfMIAk2AQuJy9+eMoMkRAQOM0pMv7WYBSQhLGAp0baykxXEFhGwktg68ymQzQFkG0k8 3WgIEmYRUJV4svw1O4jNK+AtcWtWNzPEMi2JS8engsU5BbQlbuzbAhZnBDro+6k1YMcxC4hL 3HoyH+pQAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2OFsJUkJi09xwpRrydxY+oUNghbW2LZwtfMEHsFJU7OfMIy gVF0FpKxs5C0zELSMgtJywJGllWMHKXFqWW56UYGmxiB0XNMgk13B+Oel5aHGAU4GJV4eA3E 74QIsSaWFVfmHmKU5mBREudd9OBgiJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQbG4L9hB7Pq +Lruxk3WlZ3Gvenylqsbu2IKYwKqe1XkrI5eFz5y+PYRofTeuZ9fvLmzT/yoROXJNex32ozO 6q/5UJQ022Gl7hxd9g8Lr/rvkDbi91/3f4e553KJojnxEuyn2D+dPN/8iINpf9r5npK7PVOL t/M5uP/WelDDLq5wbI/KvJZArbnLlFiKMxINtZiLihMBKXBtzX8CAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/lMH3UcRzgp-2-q43co9x1uHGyNw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:20:56 -0800
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg draft hierarchy (Reply to this one)
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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:18:29 -0000

In short, I agree with Mr. Lindem (unsurprisingly).

An "n to 1"  model between (same) routing protocol instances and RIB presents many unresolvable problems as soon address spaces overlap. Basically route from instance 1 becomes undistinguishable from route from instance 2 with same address (RDs are not intended to be in RIB, they are local concepts within a protocol).  One could image different ADs _per_ instance of same protocol but I'd like to see the use case for that. 

Same for interfaces, an interface has an address (generally, let's not discuss link locals and unnumbered and such) and the address is in an address space. RIB is basically a closure of an 'routable' address space and its summaries (prefixes) over multiple protocols dealing with reachability computation.

--- tony 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:06 PM
> To: Routing YANG; Routing WG; Thomas Morin; Ladislav Lhotka
> Subject: rtg-cfg draft hierarchy (Reply to this one)
> 
> 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 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email