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>om>; Jeff Tantsura
<jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org; Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)
<dhjain@cisco.com>om>; 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>gt;,
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