Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Fri, 10 February 2017 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA67C129A31 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:42:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0BcVysp_0yS3 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 824B8129A27 for <>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:42:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=22633; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486744963; x=1487954563; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dfbohU2brjc8alTS3PUlUOnuicgn7wHqkm1qRXuJCsY=; b=ZS3M4peeJZHLp0azKQa5y+8AjFHaL0N0GKhQIjp1F+CXQ/JXzJ/t53X/ uUr05tbVo+TMOg8DZiTYz0u3faMrTVpvRxLkiKsNeh6vG4vSb2a9hDKqS FT55tVDMett4HtMlW+EmTaLqgbk/yTwG/6hhfHae61I4lm/s+Ctw0Z7IW c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,142,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="205392007"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Feb 2017 16:42:42 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1AGgfso005412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:42:42 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:42:40 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:42:40 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Giles Heron <>
Thread-Topic: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
Thread-Index: AQHSg60ugeyj/xTMfUS7Ul84up0SbqFivycA//+y3gA=
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:42:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4C356E99C0B5aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette \(pbrisset\)" <>, "Shah, Himanshu" <>, "" <>, "Dhanendra Jain \(dhjain\)" <>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:42:46 -0000

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?

From: Giles Heron <<>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM
To: Acee Lindem <<>>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Himanshu Shah <<>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <<>>
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.


On 10 Feb 2017, at 14:51, Acee Lindem (acee) <<>> 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.

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

From: BESS <<>> on behalf of "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <<>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM
To: "<>" <<>>
Cc: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <<>>, Himanshu Shah <<>>
Subject: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module


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.
Patrice Brissette
BESS mailing list<>