Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Sat, 11 February 2017 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2B7129A32; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:46:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 4Oo3jPQJEoXs; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:46:10 -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 63851129A31; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:46:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=26043; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486835170; x=1488044770; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=bNQZbTno94nOo4SRR1l7cNK/P+EZkUoquqoq9zNj31o=; b=UoWQqmRsh6dSNtOzoQjVNBOcYD9/D62B+ty6WbwT+CzhdrxrjsDWQPX6 O5l6O/arwdVGjVJfr3KXgMb8rY6IfcKfNJICaugOVoNc6VuJxbdjnMfK3 IO7fyIcke0UAI7RjU5Gu/1cTY6/hRMm9MHm0zlwpC75Po2vRT4lxfv3Ao o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,147,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="207501962"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Feb 2017 17:46:09 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1BHk9ug014055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:46:09 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:46:08 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:46:08 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <>, Jeff Tantsura <>, Giles Heron <>
Thread-Topic: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
Thread-Index: AQHSg60ugeyj/xTMfUS7Ul84up0SbqFkJtiA
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:46:08 +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_D4C4B7199C246aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Dhanendra Jain \(dhjain\)" <>, "" <>, "Shah, Himanshu" <>
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: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:46:12 -0000

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.


From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <<>>
Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:23 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura <<>>, Acee Lindem <<>>, Giles Heron <<>>
Cc: Himanshu Shah <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <<>>
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.

Patrice Brissette

From: Jeff Tantsura <<>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:43 PM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <<>>, Giles Heron <<>>
Cc: Patrice Brissette <<>>, "Shah, Himanshu" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <<>>
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


From: BESS <<>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <<>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 08:42
To: Giles Heron <<>>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <<>>, "Shah, Himanshu" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <<>>
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?

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<>

_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list<>