Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy corrected)
Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net> Thu, 26 February 2015 19:29 UTC
Return-Path: <deanb@juniper.net>
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 A83041A1AF0; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:29:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 8VYoPvz6Cd_t; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0731.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:731]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2741A049C; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:29:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO1PR05MB427.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.74.12) by CO1PR05MB428.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.74.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.93.16; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:29:02 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB427.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.147]) by CO1PR05MB427.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.147]) with mapi id 15.01.0093.004; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:29:02 +0000
From: Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy corrected)
Thread-Topic: [Rtg-yang-coord] rtg-cfg hierachy (Indentation in hierarchy corrected)
Thread-Index: AQHQS74c5g8pGC6LyU+IJwKVns4gSJz+Oz6AgAUiOIA=
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:29:02 +0000
Message-ID: <06F5B0A6-15D4-4AD2-8C74-A46AF5C84E46@juniper.net>
References: <D10A678C.EB2C%acee@cisco.com> <m27fv8zsl0.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <m27fv8zsl0.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=deanb@juniper.net;
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB428;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO1PR05MB428CBDAF1D4627FB48F69E5FA140@CO1PR05MB428.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB428;
x-forefront-prvs: 0499DAF22A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(377424004)(24454002)(164054003)(199003)(377454003)(479174004)(189002)(575784001)(86362001)(76176999)(83716003)(50986999)(101416001)(33656002)(82746002)(64706001)(19580405001)(40100003)(2656002)(87936001)(66066001)(122556002)(19580395003)(5890100001)(97736003)(110136001)(99286002)(230783001)(106356001)(106116001)(2950100001)(105586002)(77156002)(62966003)(68736005)(57306001)(15975445007)(36756003)(46102003)(92566002)(50226001)(102836002)(2900100001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB428; H:CO1PR05MB427.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <A58B9681F4414548A49C1DDB2556A0C1@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Feb 2015 19:29:02.0666 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR05MB428
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/UscDoXfykAGkz-ibhBSMSclkTqY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 11:48:33 -0800
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: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:29:38 -0000
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 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
- 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