Hi Acee, For argument sake (this is non-blocking), I don't see difference between static routes and protocol-learned routes. Why would protocol-learned routes need to have nexthop-specific backup while static routes don't?
Thanks. Jeffrey -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 10:51 AM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> Cc: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>; Routing Directorate <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Jeffrey, > On May 1, 2023, at 5:05 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Yingzhen, > I can go with that if that’s what the authors/WG’s preference, but my > preference would be to cover it in the base specification itself. What’s the > harm? > Anyway, this is not a blocking comment. The way the backup static route use case is handled is by configuring multiple next-hops with different preferences. This is one of the most useful extensions provided by this augmentation. Thanks, Acee > Thanks. > Jeffrey > From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:01 PM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16 > [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Jeffrey, Considering > this is not commonly used, I'd suggest if someone really needs it they can do > an easy augmentation using the grouping defined in this draft. > Thanks, > Yingzhen > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Yingzhen, > From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:46 PM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-16 > [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Jeffrey, Thanks for the > review, please see my answers below. > Thanks, > Yingzhen > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:43 AM Zhaohui Zhang via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Zhaohui Zhang > Review result: Has Issues > > I have the following one nit comment and one question: > > augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/" > + "rt:routes/rt:route/rt:next-hop/rt:next-hop-options/" > + "rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop-list/rt:next-hop" > { > description > "Augment the multiple next hops with repair path."; > uses repair-path; > } > > The description is slightly misleading. It is to agument a single > next-hop in the next-hop-list, not "multiple next hops". > [Yingzhen] how about: "Augment the next-hop with a repair path." > Zzh> Good. > Shouldn't the repair path be applicable to static routes as well? > [Yingzhen]: Theoretically you can have a repair-path for a static route, but > have you seen this in deployment? > Zzh> Whether anyone implemented/deployed it that way, I think it’s quite > reasonable and desired to have it covered in the spec. For example, a static > route could be using if1 by default but if2 as backup (in case if1 is down). > Zzh> Jeffrey > Juniper Business Use Only > > Juniper Business Use Only Juniper Business Use Only _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
