Martin, > n Nov 24, 2015, at 4:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >> We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the >> ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support I2RS. >> These discussions are ongoing. >> >> One current change that I would like to propose is to change the base >> instance container from routing-instance to networking-instance. > > Is the idea to simply rename the "routing-instance" container to > "networking-instance"? > > Then we would have: > > +--rw routing > +--rw networking-instance > > Would you keep the top-level name "routing”?
Yes, routing is not confined to IP only. TRILL and PBB do routing at MAC layer, so routing as top level domain can stay. OTH, routing instance is well defined term in the industry, so there is a need to have a term that can encompass L2 and L3. Dean > > > > > /martin > > > > >> This >> would provide an instance definition that could be augmented for L2 >> protocols and service functionality as well as L3. It is also consistent >> with the term used in both >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-01.txt and >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-rtgwg-network-instance-01.txt. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rtg-dt-yang-arch mailing list > rtg-dt-yang-a...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-yang-arch _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
