On 10/18/15 1:46 PM, Rob Shakir wrote: > Hi Benoit, John, <snip>
> I agree with the sentiment here. > > However, we need to consider how wide-ranging this discussion might > end up being, and what the implications elsewhere might be. Let’s > take a very simple example of the Per-Peer Header (§4.2) ‘Peer > Distinguisher’. > > The structure that the IETF is progressing towards is that we have a > VRF-centric model for protocol configuration. That is to say that we > have protocols that are rooted under a routing table, rather than > vice-versa. This means that to be able to identify a particular peer, > we need to distinguish the routing table to which it belongs (to find > the correct routing table), and subsequently the address of the peer. > The latter is fine, but the former is more problematic. For example, > we may have a routing instance that does not have an RD specified > (this is the case where we have VRFs that are not L3VPN VRFs). [0] the scenario you describe inclusive of overlapping prefixes describes a number of deployments. > This would mean that we can’t key the lists in the same way - so is > the ask simply that we are able to determine - based on the set of > input data that is received from BMP - the object within the YANG > model hierarchy that is being referenced? Or is it more wide than > that, which says that BMP and YANG objects should be keyed the same? > > I believe that the former is the only one that we can practically > achieve - and in that case, only for a subset of cases. > > If we can clarify the intention here, I can take a look at the > mapping. From a first pass, I don’t see huge problems (other than > some values in the BMP header are perhaps not relevant to BGP > configuration/state in general). > > The model that is perhaps as relevant as the models that Benoit > mentioned is a model describing the BGP RIB - which should > potentially have the same means of describing NLRI etc. such that > they can be referenced (UPDATE in BMP message X can be referenced to > entry in BGP RIB of router R). The RIB models that OpenConfig is > working on are not (yet) published in the IETF: > https://github.com/openconfig/public/tree/master/release/models/rib > > Kind regards, r. > > [0]: This might raise the question of what happens when we have > multiple VRFs without RDs, but overlapping addressing in the BMP > spec. > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
