Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

"Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dhjain@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491B0129891; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:12:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 v0rOipeWhr9R; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:12:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB5912988D; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:12:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=70364; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487106735; x=1488316335; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=kKL7KK/zkb99+JfLleklnFufIsdXdKqZ8hXXvHM8oiU=; b=hruGKYBfXnL5VnllwXZ90OKeps/yNIJSj3f9Ny3wpidXhVPCRdPh/ctM 1MgIkLlTG/VG2WDnRaGMBcgIzFXxj+Js5z4JwtUlvyU4Ix+DesYgIP5+7 A15Al5vBFTnKFzR1kGh8cCfXgOa9/GmkO61gilhG9qx738MyeHhPrBCo2 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AVAQDGcaNY/4oNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm9jYYEJB41akhCIDI0qggkDHwEKgh2DWwKBfz8YAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BYiiEaQEBAQQBARgTQQsQAgEIEQMBAQEhAQYHIQYLFAkIAgQBDQWJUwMVDrF4h?= =?us-ascii?q?0INhBcBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYZMhG+CUYIREhaFLwWVVIVkOgG?= =?us-ascii?q?NeoQZgXuFF4lziCyCCYhfAR84gQBRFT2EDD4YgWF1AYh6gQwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,162,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="198220569"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Feb 2017 21:12:14 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1ELCE8j020854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:12:14 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:12:13 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:12:13 -0600
From: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>, "'Jeff Tantsura'" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "'Giles Heron'" <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
Thread-Index: AQHSg60ugeyj/xTMfUS7Ul84up0SbqFiz+sAgAAGsgCAADJ9AIABKBWAgABJfgCAAvxRgIABUN6AgACLAoD//4q8AIAAh9gA//9/rYA=
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:12:13 +0000
Message-ID: <D4C8B116.E72B0%dhjain@cisco.com>
References: <D4C33B0D.9C077%acee@cisco.com> <3A8EF0FD-3307-435F-A3BE-F4F90E6B47A1@gmail.com> <D4C356E9.9C0B5%acee@cisco.com> <E1CA3039-0DAA-45A0-88BA-FD67139451BF@gmail.com> <3AE4BB0C-8039-4AAF-AD69-E27583E72B4B@cisco.com> <D4C4B719.9C246%acee@cisco.com> <05a001d2860c$e2c24e00$a846ea00$@gmail.com> <D4C8964F.E7198%dhjain@cisco.com> <06e501d286fa$d40af6c0$7c20e440$@gmail.com> <D4C8AB92.E7269%dhjain@cisco.com> <D4C8D77B.9C630%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4C8D77B.9C630%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.6.160626
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.160.131]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4C8B116E72B0dhjainciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/4uR6lwwJzy61yy1x4L39WJ1wnng>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>, "'Shah, Himanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:12:19 -0000

Hi Acee,

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 12:51 PM
To: Cisco Employee <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>, 'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, "'Shah, Himanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

See inline.

From: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 3:45 PM
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>, 'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, Himanshu Shah <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Hi Xefeng,

From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:44 AM
To: Cisco Employee <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>, 'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, "'Shah, Himanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>
Subject: RE: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Hi Dhanendra,

More below.
Thanks,

- Xufeng

From: Dhanendra Jain (dhjain) [mailto:dhjain@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:27 PM
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>; Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>; 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>; 'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; 'Shah, Himanshu' <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Hi Xufeng,

inline..

From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:21 AM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>, 'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>>, Cisco Employee <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, "'Shah, Himanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>
Subject: RE: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

In EVPN, as Patrice described, the structure is:

      |     +--rw bgp-parameters
      |     |  +--rw common
      |     |     +--rw rd-rt* [route-distinguisher]
      |     |        +--rw route-distinguisher    string
      |     |        +--rw vpn-target* [rt-value]
      |     |           +--rw rt-value    string
      |     |           +--rw rt-type     bgp-rt-type

In L2VPN, the structure is:
             +--ro bgp-auto-discovery
             |  +--ro route-distinguisher?   string
             |  +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value]
             |  |  +--ro rt-value    string
             |  |  +--ro rt-type     bgp-rt-type

In L3VPN, the current structure is:
      +--rw route-distinguisher
      |  +--rw config
      |  |  +--rw rd?   string
      +--rw ipv4
      |  +--rw unicast
      |     +--rw route-targets
      |     |  +--rw config
      |     |  |  +--rw rts* [rt]
      |     |  |  |  +--rw rt         string
      |     |  |  |  +--rw rt-type?   Enumeration
      +--rw ipv6
         +--rw unicast
            +--rw route-targets
            |  +--rw config
            |  |  +--rw rts* [rt]
            |  |  |  +--rw rt         string
            |  |  |  +--rw rt-type?   enumeration

Hi Dhanendra and All,

Are we ok to move the route targets section out of the AF specific location to where RD is specified? If so, we can define the following common grouping:

Dhjain> I think one way to handle this is to have separate common groupings for RD and RT. So that we can retain AF level granularity for RT grouping for import/export rules.
[Xufeng] Yes. That will be the approach below, to have separate an RT grouping. The question is: do we need/want to retain the AF level granularity for RT rules?


Dhjain> Yes, because we have to configure Safi specific import/export rules separately with an L3 instance.  In the case of L2 the L2vpn and EVPN instances are separate from the top itself,  having separate RD/RT.

Agreed, but this shouldn’t be reflected in the common grouping. It should just be simple reusable list of <RT, RT-Type> and possibly an RD.

Dhjain> Yes, essentially that is second option below, the re-usable groupings of RT alone and RD alone. Another grouping containing both can also be provided and can be used within l2vpn/evpn.  But in case of L3, RD grouping can be used at network instance level, and RT grouping at SAFI level.

Thanks,
Dhanendra.


Thanks,
Acee






Thanks,
Dhanendra.

             |  +--ro route-distinguisher?   string
             |  +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value]
             |  |  +--ro rt-value    string
             |  |  +--ro rt-type     bgp-rt-type

Otherwise, we can only define a grouping without the RD:

             |  +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value]
             |  |  +--ro rt-value    string
             |  |  +--ro rt-type     bgp-rt-type
Thanks,
- Xufeng


From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 12:46 PM
To: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>; Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>; Dhanendra Jain (dhjain) <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; Shah, Himanshu <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Given that there is no paucity of authors and contributors on these three BESS YANG models, I’d hope that one of them could provide a suggested common grouping. For now, I’ve added the route-target-type type on which there seems to be consensus.

Thanks,
Acee

From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>
Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:23 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: Himanshu Shah <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Hi Folks,

Same here. Can we do something about it?  And agree, all 3 VPN models should have the same commonality.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:43 PM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: Patrice Brissette <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

I’d prefer common grouping indraft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types and references from any other model using it


Cheers,
Jeff


From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 08:42
To: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Hi Giles,
I will add the route-target-type type (enum of import, export, both) but for a general grouping, it appears there are some discrepancies between the 3 models. Assuming the types: route-discriminator, route-target, and route-target-type, can you provide a consensus grouping that all the models would use?
Thanks,
Acee

From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, Himanshu Shah <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Hi Acee,

In general seems that for any BGP VPN (L2 or L3) you have an RD plus a list of RTs (which can be import, export or both) - so I’d prefer that to be defined in a shared grouping (more or less as per the structure Patrice gave below) than to force each model to redefine it.

Giles

On 10 Feb 2017, at 14:51, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:

Hi Patrice – we are working fervently on a common IETF routing types model. We have both route-target and router-distinguisher types defined there. The work is being done in the Routing WG. Our intension is to accelerate standardization so it doesn’t hold up standardization of the importing modules. Please comment as to whether you think this meets BESS requirements.

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00.txt

Thanks,
Acee
P.S. We plan an update next week but the RD and RT definitions have not changed.



From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com<mailto:dhjain@cisco.com>>, Himanshu Shah <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>>
Subject: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Folks,

As part of EVPN, L2VPn and L3VPN Yang model, there is a “module” common to all 3 Yang models.

      |     +--rw bgp-parameters
      |     |  +--rw common
      |     |     +--rw rd-rt* [route-distinguisher]
      |     |        +--rw route-distinguisher    string
      |     |        +--rw vpn-target* [rt-value]
      |     |           +--rw rt-value    string
      |     |           +--rw rt-type     bgp-rt-type


It will be interesting to create a common BGP parameter Yang module as shown above. I think it just makes sense.
However, there is a minor challenge; that module require a home (a draft).
I’m looking for feedback about the best place/draft for such a module.

Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess