[bess] Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

"Xu honglei" <xuhl.bri@chinatelecom.cn> Thu, 18 July 2019 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <xuhl.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
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 0F8651202A4 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XTPYTlX99BII for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F4C1200B3 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 04:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.48:19926.2034190382
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-219.142.69.76 (unknown [172.18.0.48]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id E2ABA28008F for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:05:03 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: xuhl.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from EHLO ip<219.142.69.76> ([172.18.0.48]) by App0024 with ESMTP id a208b517-5724-4ed2-b67d-ad32e87a5301 for bess@ietf.org; Thu Jul 18 19:05:03 2019
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: xuhl.bri@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.48
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
From: "Xu honglei" <xuhl.bri@chinatelecom.cn>
To: <bess@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:05:04 +0800
Message-ID: <001f01d53d58$a7abd3d0$f7037b70$@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01D53D9B.B5CF8900"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdU9VzQwJWixc84DSMKaJKPcUmB9/Q==
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/6vFLuca5-Pkj6WY2r8cJREeHNl8>
Subject: [bess] Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:05:11 -0000

Hi, WG:

I have read the latest version of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang and have a few
quick comments:

# Evpn instance augments the "l2vpn:l2vpn". It seems to make a lot of sense,
However how many attributes defined in L2VPN Yang can be used by EVPN? In
addition, RT and RD are redefined in evpn-instance. Do they overwrite the RT
& RD defined in L2VPN YANG?

# vpls-constraints is an empty container, it seems like a placeholder.

# Routes container is defined under each evpn-instance. I am wondering
whether all route list should exist at the same time, or some of them are
optional, some of them are mandatory. I am not sure we should implement all
of them.

 

 

H.Xu