Subject: High Level Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-rtg-cfg-16.txt

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 02:58:12 +0000

I have two rather substantive comments on the draft we will be discussing
in tomorrow¹s rtgwg meeting.

   1. The draft includes stub definitions for import/export routing
filters with the guidance that these should be augmented. I would like to
see these removed from this draft as the whole area of routing policy
should be worked on by a multi-vendor team similar to what is being done
for the routing protocols. I don¹t think the direction should be set for
routing policy based on these stub definitions.

   2. The draft defines a list of interfaces that correspond to a
routing-instance. The routing-instance binds the physical interface (RFC
RFC 7273) to an address space. However, the IPv4/IPv6 interface addresses
are specified via the YANG model in RFC 7277. I really don¹t like this
disjoint specification. Rather, "/if:interfaces/if:interface"  in RFC 7273
should be augmented in a reference to the routing instance. Additionally,
the neighbor discovery definitions should augment the ipv6 container in
RFC 7277). 

I also have one question for the RTG WG - do we want this model to specify
the precise forwarding behavior?

  The draft states that ³backup next-hops are only used if no primary
next-hops exist." This will relegate all implementations to the same IPFRR
behavior. I don¹t think that this should be specified in this draft.

Thanks,
Acee