1) Status 2) Pull Request : https://github.com/freerangerouting/frr/pull/44 -> RD/RT cli discussion -> Functionality how does this properly fit into vnc? 3) Anything else? donald
Donald, Isn't 2 really gated by (or perhaps the same as) the larger VRF config discussion? Lou PS for context and from the last time we discussed this topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w_ie2tNXCgn0N3ZNFGYTK6lJkwMmk_XN5yz33MMN... On 1/10/2017 8:43 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
1) Status
2) Pull Request : https://github.com/freerangerouting/frr/pull/44 -> RD/RT cli discussion -> Functionality how does this properly fit into vnc?
3) Anything else?
donald
_______________________________________________ frr mailing list frr@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/frr
Yes it is the same. But since we have an actual Pull request now we need to actually be more active in discussions. donald On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
Donald,
Isn't 2 really gated by (or perhaps the same as) the larger VRF config discussion?
Lou
PS for context and from the last time we discussed this topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w_ie2tNXCgn0N3ZNFGYTK6lJkwMmk_XN5yz33MMN...
On 1/10/2017 8:43 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
1) Status
2) Pull Request : https://github.com/freerangerouting/frr/pull/44 -> RD/RT cli discussion -> Functionality how does this properly fit into vnc?
3) Anything else?
donald
_______________________________________________ frr mailing list frr@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/frr
So Philippe and I kept talking a bit after everyone left and we think there are two different options with supporters: 6a- the one promoted by vivek and 1a the one preferred by Philippe. 6a puts information used by the core instance in the context of a 'router bgp XXX vrf <name>' config semantic while 1a puts the information inside the the core instance's bgp config under a 'vrf-policy <vrf-name>' config semantic. I personally think the 1a is a bit easier to implement/understand as it clearly identifies which information lives within the core bgp instance (which is always present) and which exists in the per-vrf bgp instance (which need not always be present). But I also see the value of having all the vrf config information "close" in the config file. The options are at the top of the google doc and are repeated below to get the discussion going. What do others think? Lou https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w_ie2tNXCgn0N3ZNFGYTK6lJkwMmk_XN5yz33MMN... Based on Jan 10 meeting: Option 6a -Vivek: ! BGP configuration for this VRF router bgp XXX vrf blue ! (address-family ipv4) network 1.2.3.0/24 route-map foo [rd <value>] neighbor ... ! CE session (or alternately, VRF-lite session) redistribute static|ospf ! CE setup for OSPF ! no special parameters on redistribute needed; VRF name is already OK Export zebra [route map] !vrf-policy !applies to VPNvX in core instance ! RD/RT configuration also goes here - as it is needed per VRF rd <value> route-target import <value> route-target export <value> vrf-label <value> [network] !future -- layer 2/3 Option 1a - Philippe: config term router bgp .... !core instance vrf-policy <vrf-name> rd <value> route-target import <value> route-target export <value> Network <prefix> label <value> Maximum-path <1-64> !future -- layer 2/3 router bgp XXX vrf <vrf-name> ! (address-family ipv4) network 1.2.3.0/24 route-map foo [rd <value>] neighbor ... ! CE session (or alternately, VRF-lite session) redistribute static|ospf ! CE setup for OSPF ! no special parameters on redistribute needed; VRF name is already OK export zebra [route map] add [vrf <vrf-name>] prefix <prefix> next-hop <ipv4|ipv6-addr> [rd <value>] [label <value>] On 1/10/2017 9:01 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
Donald,
Isn't 2 really gated by (or perhaps the same as) the larger VRF config discussion?
Lou
PS for context and from the last time we discussed this topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w_ie2tNXCgn0N3ZNFGYTK6lJkwMmk_XN5yz33MMN...
On 1/10/2017 8:43 AM, Donald Sharp wrote:
1) Status
2) Pull Request : https://github.com/freerangerouting/frr/pull/44 -> RD/RT cli discussion -> Functionality how does this properly fit into vnc?
3) Anything else?
donald
_______________________________________________ frr mailing list frr@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/frr
_______________________________________________ frr mailing list frr@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/frr
Hi Donald, all As discuss yesterday on Slack, here it is my proposal to manage Pull Request to be discuss during the audio. Regards Olivier --- FRR Pull request management --- - Once a Pull Request is submitted, it is assigned to a code reviewer. The code reviewer has 2 weeks to review the code and commit it into the master. If the assigned code reviewer is too busy to manage the Pull Request he must delegate the review to another person within 3 days. - Code reviewer has not necessary the right to commit directly the code. If he hasn't the right, a maintainer could do that once the review is done and the Pull request accepted. - Code reviewer is responsible to interact with the owner of the Pull Request if modifications are necessary - Code reviewers are designate based on volunteer who explicitly indicate which part of the code he/she is confident and able to review - To start, helping people becoming a code reviewer and facilitate Pull request assignation to a code reviewer, we could fulfil the following table, which is give as example. The idea is at least to split the project into its various routing protocols and some transverses functions. FRR Code Primary Reviewer Backup Reviewer bgpd isisd ldpd lib ospf6d ospfd pimd ripd ripngd vtysh zebra packaging compilation tools Le 10/01/2017 à 14:43, Donald Sharp a écrit :
1) Status
2) Pull Request : https://github.com/freerangerouting/frr/pull/44 -> RD/RT cli discussion -> Functionality how does this properly fit into vnc?
3) Anything else?
donald
_______________________________________________ frr mailing list frr@lists.nox.tf https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/frr
Meeting Notes: 1) Status: The last bug to declare rc1 eligible is in a Pull Request. Quick look at open bugs for stable/2.0 The name for the project needs to be rethought. 2) RD/RT discussion See Lou's Email for a summarization. 3) Anything else Olivier proposed how to handle pull requests. We will look over this in next weeks meeting since we did not get to it today. donald On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
1) Status
2) Pull Request : https://github.com/freerangerouting/frr/pull/44 -> RD/RT cli discussion -> Functionality how does this properly fit into vnc?
3) Anything else?
donald
participants (3)
-
Donald Sharp -
Lou Berger -
Olivier Dugeon