Hi Lada, On 11/25/15, 3:26 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> I think using the more generic term, “networking”, at the top would be >> preferable. What we need is an instance abstraction that covers L3 > >Hmm, shall we also rename "routing-protocol" to "networking-protocol"? >Seriously, I am concerned that we are drifting away from the original >focus of the data model. We should keep in mind it needs to remain >usable by hosts (even constrained ones) and simple routers because there >is no other model such devices could use. In the Routing YANG design team, we are now considering a different approach which would satisfy this requirement and move the elements the of ietf-routing. There is no need to rename if we can make this work. Thanks, Acee > >> (e.g., virtual router or VRF), L2 (e.g., Virtual Switch Instance), or >> a combination (some EVPN, TRILL, etc). This could be used in lieu of >> each L2 model creating their own top separate list of instances. For >> example, the networking-instance could be augmented with both the VPLS >> and VPWS instances in >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang-00. >> >> Some YANG models ascribe greatness from the start, others achieve >> greatness through refinement, while still others have greatness thrust >> upon them. routing-cfg would fall into the last category… > >If it ever gets finished. > >Lada > >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 11/24/15, 4:24 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> 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"? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>/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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord > >-- >Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
