Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] High Level Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-rtg-cfg-16.txt

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Acee,
> 
> please see my comments inline.
> 
> "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> > First, let me explain why I requested that the route-filters be
> > removed from the model. What I don't like about the route-filters is
> > that they are merely place-holders placed at a point-of-attachment
> > which I don't necessarily agree with.  Although we may end up with
> > something similar, these definitions should be in a more complete
> > routing policy model. Additionally, I believe it is obvious that there
> > will
> 
> I don't think the ietf-routing module preempts any further work on a
> policy model. And if the points-of-attachment turn out to be wrong, we
> can write a new module - nothing is cast in stone and I expect the
> module will have to be redone anyway after some experience will have
> been collected.

But then it doesn't hurt to wait with these "attachment points" until
at least the first policy model is being written, right?  They can
then either be defined in an update to this model, or in a separate
model that augments this one.

[...]

> > As for the interface list in the routing-instance, I think it is
> > obvious that one should not define the address space for interface
> > disjointly from the IPv4/IPv6 interface addresses. That is why I
> > would recommend augmenting the RFC 7273 objects with a reference
> > to the routing instance rather having a disjoint interface
> > list in routing-instance as proposed.
> 
> It is IMO subjective whether the assignment of interfaces to routing
> instances should be done in interface configuration or in routing
> instance configuration. As it is now, the following procedure could work
> fine:
> 
> 1. Define routing instances (this has to be done in any case).
> 2. Assign interfaces to routing instances in routing instance
>    configuration via references to interfaces in the main interface
>    list.
> 3. Assign addresses to interfaces in main interface configuration.
> 
> The system then has all information to be able to resolve potential
> conflicts in IP addresses belonging to different routing instances.

To be very clear, is this what you propose:

  augement /if:interfaces/if:interface {
    leaf routing-instance {
      type routing-instance-ref;
    }
  }

... and remove /routing/routing-instance/interfaces?

I think this would be equivalent to your current model, in the sense
of *what* you can express.

> Maybe there are some implementation-related issues that I am missing,
> so I am not against the change you propose but I'd like to know sound
> reasons before applying it.

I think Acee provided a good reason: 

> > one should not define the address space for interface
> > disjointly from the IPv4/IPv6 interface addresses




/martin