Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy corrected)
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Fri, 27 February 2015 11:49 UTC
Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C8B1A9175; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:49:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6] autolearn=no
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 zJbOV2VJ0LxH; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0A41A00CA; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [195.113.220.110]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 432421CC0156; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:49:52 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy corrected)
In-Reply-To: <06F5B0A6-15D4-4AD2-8C74-A46AF5C84E46@juniper.net>
References: <D10A678C.EB2C%acee@cisco.com> <m27fv8zsl0.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz> <06F5B0A6-15D4-4AD2-8C74-A46AF5C84E46@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.19 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.51.2 (x86_64-apple-darwin14.0.0)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:49:53 +0100
Message-ID: <m2ioenvaji.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/RGGgOEYqoxWw5nw-MSKDvgQsA7E>
Cc: Routing YANG <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:49:57 -0000
Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net> writes: > On Feb 23, 2015, at 8:05 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> 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 I am trying to figure out whether it is absolutely safe to assume that every RIB can be confined to a single routing instance - Acee proposed to make "ribs" a child of "routing-instance" whereas now it is global (a child of "routing"). Lada > 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" <thomas.morin@orange.com> 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" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> 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 >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
- Re: rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy co… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy co… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentatio… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentatio… Dean Bogdanovic