Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

"Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 19:45 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 CE247129717; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:45:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 u4mgZpL3B4yQ; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x241.google.com (mail-lf0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::241]) (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 6281F129420; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id q89so11831447lfi.1; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:45:03 -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=ebwPBrn3vV2yJkf7QUhWv5m++SWc2wUB2cp3i3uXMC4=; b=INh2PvZSTFajUceGEkbP4swX1nKatAHiwmHRA3netebwd5emTy1P6VkC6+sTZSxovL jZ7uiup8hwa5A1pC6BwpJKwAgUm4t6VRSW/wZO8E7IzLzGeGbgWS3N8D6POHfH2semzp urkf4+BoYFmtBFafR5BtnKlC7xfYHCXhRR9YRn0OljI7dhQmKNa4sONq5237C4dkbU+m pyP0uNOfvDLqKxrlQOKsBKcYZfMxxhXLWtdoODVoq1RmgJpA1HjT0pBEHxyNw0RM9TTd AB8ICOl8+vT8Kx4ewQXxAScSPyyGvcRfLrHdIuZVE9fNjIat5WjfmwIzI+5GXGrbvFwb pdEw==
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=ebwPBrn3vV2yJkf7QUhWv5m++SWc2wUB2cp3i3uXMC4=; b=JkKIDnyzBBan0bP1yGHGQWDys5Q73Mfep5QkGPc+uJgSnWX++an5h3KR4vmvaE+/oZ UbErBNupPqjPhxtaKqFYep1rdlmdatT5BUisEkdkE+uXCEXGaCpT0O1VG+9J3sHR5IQS OVBdq/eo/ojmR6LVbcQunVyQ4b5rgHVVzKnk3T5dFqs1yD4YpuQioRU5hNKQuJHGcXYL WZZIWsX2tAIlhQDFW8zZTrvWQC+xnHCYU152gXFO6DVXaLvAYIr6aJiwlBWTF2ogxc09 ASGQoPvhTCMK/s2ob3jQObehVfQnW9WeXZRLxTc4UrcaJz8qf+BE5p6x6/izck6ksmdY QByw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mObKTeqPpOnUNjrBOdbVx1LobvplpnpR2ckSqwHTYT4y8QiU6pfg7n6iMArpnqIA==
X-Received: by 10.25.24.152 with SMTP id 24mr9894095lfy.12.1487101501597; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:45:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xliuus (wsip-98-191-72-170.dc.dc.cox.net. [98.191.72.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g38sm376658lfi.3.2017.02.14.11.44.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:45:00 -0800 (PST)
From: "Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "'Dhanendra Jain \(dhjain\)'" <dhjain@cisco.com>, "'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> <05a001d2860c$e2c24e00$a846ea00$@gmail.com> <D4C8964F.E7198%dhjain@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4C8964F.E7198%dhjain@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:44:57 -0500
Message-ID: <06e501d286fa$d40af6c0$7c20e440$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_06E6_01D286D0.EB3982A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJRkKmlD9TJELJK0d9s9Dvo3zmghwFze37MAUeZyCgBmu4HKAHd0JX9AQ6tPwICU5fNpAHaEhvAoA9QCGA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/armX4wADEeLADVyvpEC6ajePX7U>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org, "'Shah, Himanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com>, bess@ietf.org
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:45:07 -0000

Hi Dhanendra,

 

More below. 

Thanks,

 

- Xufeng

 

From: Dhanendra Jain (dhjain) [mailto:dhjain@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:27 PM
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<acee@cisco.com>om>; 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; bess@ietf.org; 'Shah, Himanshu'
<hshah@ciena.com>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

 

Hi Xufeng,

 

inline..

 

From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> >
Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:21 AM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com> >, "Patrice
Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com <mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com> >,
'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> >,
'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gmail.com <mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com> >
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org> "
<draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org> >, Cisco Employee
<dhjain@cisco.com <mailto:dhjain@cisco.com> >, "bess@ietf.org
<mailto:bess@ietf.org> " <bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> >, "'Shah,
Himanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com <mailto:hshah@ciena.com> >
Subject: RE: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

 

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:

 

Dhjain> I think one way to handle this is to have separate common groupings
for RD and RT. So that we can retain AF level granularity for RT grouping
for import/export rules. 

[Xufeng] Yes. That will be the approach below, to have separate an RT
grouping. The question is: do we need/want to retain the AF level
granularity for RT rules?

 

Thanks,

Dhanendra.

 

             |  +--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
<mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com> >; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> >; Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com
<mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com> >
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org> ; Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)
<dhjain@cisco.com <mailto:dhjain@cisco.com> >; bess@ietf.org
<mailto:bess@ietf.org> ; Shah, Himanshu <hshah@ciena.com
<mailto: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