Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
"Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 13 February 2017 15:21 UTC
Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.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 E89011296AD; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:21:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 LcuZ2U_57vWi; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:21:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x243.google.com (mail-ot0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::243]) (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 BF80A129653; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x243.google.com with SMTP id 73so11889829otj.1; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:21:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=DfnwH8yH621PPZ1Kmhr09gDWFFku1D92o6qyIKGIZ2k=; b=hRc/RgHKAFFqYZLU9n5hnUdaKivA3iOZQgNNn6xkkQsgUU0WPMBaMFswNc5itDdYnJ xAa+gQB4bdXN/7MQB7hQ+oCjS5xdzZzxjMOMbX8QK/c3N/B1ypxOVD3UhoyyL0Lb9dF4 L5RuM82S8ieDRFjxL8bQiUcv5MWUW/VNv8/fgSiktnAPmBixPxnaR41yc+/FBcHT5IEa MB/mFjLsnwHPp54OpAyfXye5HwE6blqf6iITAahIFel6q+z81NE4SD3KMyytHqiTEudr RKMSTrWTYOeVHLCoz5xIdZgrcZO89fe0sMWOTd4EB7TrfDJNbMpeIYxOusdYfeAMC4js BN8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=DfnwH8yH621PPZ1Kmhr09gDWFFku1D92o6qyIKGIZ2k=; b=HKumk1e78yeFpKSeq2DQtqgGn3hXtro/BAIfgpOi5q+OavCjwU+5I8MhWiPAv8l8Pd fk9R14OmOqLPeurba9NjbBkMl1ZxAZb1ewI7tIvROZLQxvIFyJuqNV6Ok3HIvbAzhhWd 4BVgpwgAMiMyh6hENkV2Loe1uewTAYT+VuqOvx46Cg6/egxk0j3eJesH/K50o+8S6RsJ ySO8F13MqnVJZtZOgJRTvfmBwnYjq07wyAR++00r5YyMN1KSuidQr2SwZIKkU9+dRh6u sD2SUjGVlkHop7twb6gGjawde7BoyeP+SZaQFKPqGhQSPJtaO6vZB5dSsn2d0n/j5uH3 rQPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n11xremG8UHL+4DSJGRGdCXNy4VjAKOT1dJQHyj21BYcEYReu75P/ARtBc5oGQ4A==
X-Received: by 10.157.36.230 with SMTP id z93mr11992445ota.7.1486999294039; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xliuus (ip72-209-195-86.dc.dc.cox.net. [72.209.195.86]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h35sm3604227oth.50.2017.02.13.07.21.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:21:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee@cisco.com>, "'Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)'" <pbrisset@cisco.com>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, 'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gmail.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>
In-Reply-To: <D4C4B719.9C246%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:21:43 -0500
Message-ID: <05a001d2860c$e2c24e00$a846ea00$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05A1_01D285E2.F9F0D9E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJRkKmlD9TJELJK0d9s9Dvo3zmghwFze37MAUeZyCgBmu4HKAHd0JX9AQ6tPwKgLuD6MA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/H8UGFeh_eR9h7EJS5BFRbnsHwLM>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, "'Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)'" <dhjain@cisco.com>, "'Shah, Himanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com>
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:21:41 -0000
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: | +--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>; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>; Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org; Dhanendra Jain (dhjain) <dhjain@cisco.com>; bess@ietf.org; Shah, Himanshu <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> 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 < <mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org> bess-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" < <mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com> pbrisset@cisco.com> Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM To: " <mailto:bess@ietf.org> bess@ietf.org" < <mailto:bess@ietf.org> bess@ietf.org> Cc: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" < <mailto:dhjain@cisco.com> dhjain@cisco.com>, Himanshu Shah < <mailto:hshah@ciena.com> 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 <mailto:BESS@ietf.org> BESS@ietf.org <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org <mailto:BESS@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
- [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Giles Heron
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Xufeng Liu
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Xufeng Liu
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Xufeng Liu
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)