Is i2rs intended to be an API between provisioning system and a router/network? If yes, then why wouldn't it include the interface-to-routing table association?
Maria > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Dave Israel > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:26 PM > To: Robert Raszuk > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] RIB definition ... > > On 03/14/2013 02:02 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Ahhh so you are stating that to provision services on the network in > > vendor neutral way I will not be able to use I2RS by design ? > > > > Is this already agreed point that NETCONF (or any other form of > > configuration) will be required anyway in addition to I2RS for any > > complete service provisioning ? > > I don't think there are many already agreed points anywhere outside the > charter itself. So don't worry if I think something you don't like; > I'm > at least as likely to be wrong as anybody else. > > Still, I am inclined to think that RIB manipulation is separate from > permanent configuration. And while you could run a service by > hand-configuring your RIBs everywhere with I2RS (with either a > persistent I2RB state or reconfiguration on reboot from the > controller), > it doesn't seem like the *right* way to do it. It makes more sense to > establish your normal behavior through the existing configuration > mechanisms (CLI, NETCONF, etc), and then use I2RS to manipulate it. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
