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

[Dean Bogdanovic <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 23, 2015, at 8:05 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> This would imply that RIBs are within a routing-instance and that
> 
> It seems (Junos experts, please confirm) that in Junos user-defined
> routing tables can be specified both globally and per routing-instance:
> 
> http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos14.2/topics/reference/configuration-statement/export-rib-edit-routing-options.html

Lada,

Not sure what are you are getting at. In Junos you create rib-groups and within rib-groups multiple RIBs can be specified. A RIB group is a way to have a routing protocol, place information in multiple route tables. And then you are exporting from rib-group RIBs to RIBs within routing-instances. Or vice versa, importing from RIBs in routing-instances into rib-groups.

This is a special case in my opinion.

Dean
> 
>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord