Hi Edwin, Thanks for your great question!
I think this is a bug of the current model, there should be a list in a rib to maintain the nexthops of the rib. Regarding your question: “How can we add a Nexthop without informing the parent Route?” Yes, a nexthop can be created without informing the parent routes. In the current design, the nexthop is decoupled from the routes. A nexthop can be shared by multiple routes or is dedicated to a single route. Best regards, Mach From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edwin Cordeiro Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:44 PM To: i2rs Subject: [i2rs] Problem using rib-data-model RPC with rib-info-model Information (draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-05 + draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08) Hello all, When trying to implement I2RS we are faced the following problem: In draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-05#section-2.5 the RPC offer the following Nexthop operations: +---x nh-add | +---w input | | +---w rib-name string | | +---w nexthop-id? uint32 | | +---w sharing-flag? boolean | | +---w (nexthop-type)? | | ... | +--ro output | +--ro result uint32 | +--ro reason? string | +--ro nexthop-id? uint32 +---x nh-delete +---w input | +---w rib-name string | +---w nexthop-id? uint32 | +---w sharing-flag? boolean | +---w (nexthop-type)? | ... +--ro output +--ro result uint32 +--ro reason? string In these operations the Nexthop is directly connected to a RIB, but in draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08#section-2: RIB(s) contains Route(s) and Route(s) contains Nexthop(s): routing-instance | | | | 0..N | | 1..N | | interface(s) RIB(s) | | | 0..N | route(s) | | | +---------+ | +----------+ | | | 0..N | | | route-attribute match nexthop | ... Our questions are: - How can we add a Nexthop without informing the parent Route? - Looking at the RIB grammar (draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08#section-6) the Nexthop is also attached to a Route. Shouldn't Nexthop be part of RIB? Maybe something like: <rib> ::= <RIB_NAME> <rib-family> [<route> ... ] [<nexthop> ...] [ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK] routing-instance | | | | 0..N | | 1..N | | interface(s) RIB(s) | | 0..N | +--------------+ 0..N | | | | route(s) ------> nexthop(s) | | 1..N +---------+ | | | 0..N | | route-attribute match | ... If we misunderstood the model, could someone please explain why our understanding is incorrect? Best Regards, Edwin Cordeiro
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
