[babel] Issue#15: Add support for routing policy

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Mon, 29 June 2020 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC023A089B for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U5BgTLhVNgqP for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96A1D3A0858 for <babel@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id bj10so2150839plb.11 for <babel@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=MuYDmGEVq1jsOvd89/jIEIFm60o+nP1FupNy9r4W30o=; b=pztBe1V1r81SuEtb/o1Ab3zLkNkUg5jB5bMrxZzZ4cG51HMOrpihtIdKK7OnMGUoZT JgwI2zX49UTkCWbv1gLGlm0RGm4tVGbuyYZLooSg3DZcmvQpdOc4X4EqdGcQyIC1x+Sb mnzeRNP4ACdfO4whzAnYXxOhxvfBCpVFWGVYAfST6/piQISP5VlgghZfkcHJgy5QyOho R+OX0NsRr/nv44Tuvmuuw9Rt8KwDntdTQwPRywK957XZVMTLKcLo5w2dSUiZA41AE1rx Xk1UBusZWfrzAFu0baAgt8hgE7gUq5ujAWsy5+yfiqS8sTEVMknLb702af5hQd7S9otG 4qVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=MuYDmGEVq1jsOvd89/jIEIFm60o+nP1FupNy9r4W30o=; b=O1jbv5nZ/cRU+fnsDCs3giojBl5c7nvgJv9RttfHJzg7PcjLET3hBF+vyVdgtEC+Mq Hgbut6mu7Cs5R9GAWcFmWEUsdsBwd5cgT1YcoW5Zbng5ZqiWUobP+xrFckMWnbB6HlK8 1Aapt/45vR8Pt+t8ozguTCm00QewVt3kDe9CaFXOcW5C9Mmj7mL1pMVDAp9naq3rzZNW 82vO17hw2WLkqaRWPdYPd4w56j792JNlhculKstyys+l7zWVdw8bZUMNZBlRsJ12+nfN JH54MjNW3WdIqoWFk3tKLfzstiDU7yBzWTQGATC9U1RK0SlxY332ymty8RjjwsoLWtNU 9Gsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318udU3vB1vA7+BDj3rMvsGllMlpgc5rMrjc7FtkW5Op0as1O0h AOWBPGZBrEDlBAMw7lbPsiTWlc3h
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxPA/JbPXwEKFug90BMDq/YK0iLI7jeWkpA7kYSSA1jrc/hnAjax4RlGC3BISHBdN2NZfTOvw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2367:: with SMTP id f94mr19061402pje.20.1593452958751; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5600:5020:f93a:fe27:ee07:acd0? ([2601:647:5600:5020:f93a:fe27:ee07:acd0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b10sm320084pft.59.2020.06.29.10.49.18 for <babel@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FA3DCEB8-78CC-4FEE-A505-C86D7009C049"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.5\))
Message-Id: <306B3968-3A40-4E8C-B29D-72CD8E06873B@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:49:17 -0700
To: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/EWEogMZ-qbAU586gkplCrSKt4QM>
Subject: [babel] Issue#15: Add support for routing policy
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:49:21 -0000

Babel WG,

I hope this issue has not been brought up already. In either case, I do not remember what the resolution was. So here it goes.

The issue against the Babel YANG model that I needed to close on is documented here <https://github.com/mjethanandani/babel-data-model/issues/15>. It asks if Babel needs to add support for extending the base routing policy model described in draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-05>. The base model defined in that document already defines how routes are imported, exported, or modified across different routing protocols. The idea for Babel to extend would come if there was a need to extend it further with conditions (match sets) and actions that the base model cannot or does not cover. For example, BGP extends the model to add community option type, to check if the route type is external or internal, etc.

Does Babel have a need for operators to be able to extend policy definition beyond what is already defined in the base model?

Cheers.

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com