[frr] Today's Agenda

Lou Berger lberger at labn.net
Tue Jan 10 13:00:14 EST 2017


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_XN5yz33MMNNqM/edit
 
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_XN5yz33MMNNqM/edit
>
>
>
> 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 at lists.nox.tf
>> https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/frr
>
> _______________________________________________
> frr mailing list
> frr at lists.nox.tf
> https://lists.nox.tf/listinfo/frr





More information about the dev mailing list