Return-Path: 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 973C3129849; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:45:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 NAYIUpxF5Fkg; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:45:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 179A1129556; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:45:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=62542; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487105120; x=1488314720; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Lf2tMBim9OlWb3y77UHmz9PAo+s96af8zYDWX/IYfTs=; b=M5+wCu4kLN3/7DbyOn5Uxs9UdpxOw8MxLYquOOYZ0z+8krB2dJWnjsny fGpnE/bTZLFbE9hqONFSDPmVk17u94u1uN0+OKXGd+58tdrnkbS3XE5pT R2xGZa2kh4QXM7+cOrGUX78JiJ62nMwiApiTlWAPJ/yivMP1G1kF31Apm g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AVAQCpa6NY/5RdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm9jYYEJB41akhCIDI0qggkDHwEKgh2DWwKBfz8YAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BYiiEaQEBAQQBAStBCxACAQgRAwEBASEBBgchBgsUCQgCBAENBYlTAxUOsXGHQ?= =?us-ascii?q?g2EFwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhkyEb4JRgiMWhS8FlVSFZDoBjXq?= =?us-ascii?q?EGYF7hReJc4gsggmIXwEfOIEAURU9hAw+GIFhdQGIeoEMAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,162,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="208594195" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Feb 2017 20:45:18 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1EKjINt030257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:45:18 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:45:17 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:45:17 -0600 From: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" To: Xufeng Liu , "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" , "'Jeff Tantsura'" , "'Giles Heron'" Thread-Topic: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Thread-Index: AQHSg60ugeyj/xTMfUS7Ul84up0SbqFiz+sAgAAGsgCAADJ9AIABKBWAgABJfgCAAvxRgIABUN6AgACLAoD//4q8AA== Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:45:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <3A8EF0FD-3307-435F-A3BE-F4F90E6B47A1@gmail.com> <3AE4BB0C-8039-4AAF-AD69-E27583E72B4B@cisco.com> <05a001d2860c$e2c24e00$a846ea00$@gmail.com> <06e501d286fa$d40af6c0$7c20e440$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <06e501d286fa$d40af6c0$7c20e440$@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.6.160626 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.154.160.131] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4C8AB92E7269dhjainciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" , "'Shah, Himanshu'" , "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:45:22 -0000 --_000_D4C8AB92E7269dhjainciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Xefeng, From: Xufeng Liu > Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:44 AM To: Cisco Employee >, "Acee Linde= m (acee)" >, "Patrice Brissette (pbri= sset)" >, 'Jeff Tantsura' >, 'Giles Heron' > Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" >, "bess@ietf.org" >, "'Shah, Himanshu'" > Subject: RE: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module 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 = >; Acee Lindem (acee) >; Patrice Bris= sette (pbrisset) >; 'Jeff Tan= tsura' >; 'Giles He= ron' > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; 'Shah, Himanshu' > Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Hi Xufeng, inline.. From: Xufeng Liu > Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:21 AM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" >, "Patrice = Brissette (pbrisset)" >, 'Jef= f Tantsura' >, 'Gil= es Heron' > Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" >, Cisco Employee >, "bess@ietf.org" >, "'Shah, Himanshu'" > 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 groupi= ng: 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 group= ing. The question is: do we need/want to retain the AF level granularity fo= r RT rules? Dhjain> Yes, because we have to configure Safi specific import/export rules= separately with an L3 instance. In the case of L2 the L2vpn and EVPN inst= ances are separate from the top itself, having separate RD/RT. 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) >; Jeff Tantsura >; Giles Heron > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org; Dhanendra Jain (dhjain) >; bess@ietf.org; Shah, Himanshu > Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Given that there is no paucity of authors and contributors on these three B= ESS YANG models, I=92d hope that one of them could provide a suggested comm= on grouping. For now, I=92ve added the route-target-type type on which ther= e seems to be consensus. Thanks, Acee From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" > Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:23 AM To: Jeff Tantsura >= , Acee Lindem >, Giles Heron > Cc: Himanshu Shah >, "bess@ietf.org= " >, "Dhanendra J= ain (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 shoul= d have the same commonality. Regards, Patrice Brissette From: Jeff Tantsura > Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:43 PM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" >, Giles Her= on > Cc: Patrice Brissette >, "Sha= h, Himanshu" >, "bess@ietf.org" >, "Dhanendra Jain (= dhjain)" > Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module I=92d prefer common grouping indraft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types and reference= s from any other model using it Cheers, Jeff 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" >, "bess@= ietf.org" >, "Dha= nendra 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 fo= r a general grouping, it appears there are some discrepancies between the 3= models. Assuming the types: route-discriminator, route-target, and route-t= arget-type, can you provide a consensus grouping that all the models would = use? Thanks, Acee From: Giles Heron > Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM To: Acee Lindem > Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" >, "bess@ietf.org" >, Himanshu Shah >, "Dhanen= dra 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=92d prefer that to be = defined in a shared grouping (more or less as per the structure Patrice gav= e below) than to force each model to redefine it. Giles On 10 Feb 2017, at 14:51, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: Hi Patrice =96 we are working fervently on a common IETF routing types mode= l. 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 st= andardization so it doesn=92t hold up standardization of the importing modu= les. Please comment as to whether you think this meets BESS requirements. 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 cha= nged. From: BESS > on behalf = of "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" > Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM To: "bess@ietf.org" > Cc: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" >, = Himanshu Shah > Subject: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Folks, As part of EVPN, L2VPn and L3VPN Yang model, there is a =93module=94 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 show= n above. I think it just makes sense. However, there is a minor challenge; that module require a home (a draft). I=92m looking for feedback about the best place/draft for such a module. Thanks for your help. Regards, Patrice Brissette _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf= .org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess --_000_D4C8AB92E7269dhjainciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <9BF40269A974844BB776ED6A703C9DE7@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Xefeng,

From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at= 11:44 AM
To: Cisco Employee <dhjain@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)&= quot; <acee@cisco.com>, "P= atrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ie= tf@gmail.com>, 'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" <dra= ft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "'Shah, H= imanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com&g= t;
Subject: RE: [bess] BGP common para= meter Yang module

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 <xufe= ng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <pbrisset@cisco.com>; 'Jeff Tantsura' <jefftant.ie= tf@gmail.com>; '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>
Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:21 AM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <<= a href=3D"mailto:pbrisset@cisco.com">pbrisset@cisco.com>, 'Jeff Tant= sura' <jefftant.ietf@gmail.co= m>, 'Giles Heron' <giles.heron@gma= il.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.= org>, Cisco Employee <dhjain@= cisco.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "'Shah, Himanshu'&quo= t; <hshah@ciena.com>
Subject: RE: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

 

In EVPN, as Patrice described, the stru= cture is:

 =

      |  &n= bsp;  +--rw bgp-parameters=

      |  &n= bsp;  |  +--rw common=

      |  &n= bsp;  |     +--rw rd-rt* [route-distinguisher]=

      |  &n= bsp;  |        +--rw route-dist= inguisher    string<= /o:p>

      |  &n= bsp;  |        +--rw vpn-target= * [rt-value]

      |  &n= bsp;  |           &#= 43;--rw rt-value    string

      |  &n= bsp;  |           &#= 43;--rw rt-type     bgp-rt-type

 

In L2VPN, the structure is:

       &nbs= p;     +--ro bgp-auto-discovery

       &nbs= p;     |  +--ro route-distinguisher? &nbs= p; string

       &nbs= p;     |  +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value]<= span style=3D"color:black">

       &nbs= p;     |  |  +--ro rt-value  &n= bsp; string

       &nbs= p;     |  |  +--ro rt-type  &nb= sp;  bgp-rt-type<= /p>

 

In L3VPN, the current structure is:

      +--r= w route-distinguisher<= /p>

      |  = +--rw config

      |  = |  +--rw rd?   string=

      +--r= w ipv4

      |  = +--rw unicast

      | &= nbsp;   +--rw route-targets

      | &= nbsp;   |  +--rw config

      | &= nbsp;   |  |  +--rw rts* [rt]

      | &= nbsp;   |  |  |  +--rw rt   &nb= sp;     string<= /o:p>

      | &= nbsp;   |  |  |  +--rw rt-type?   En= umeration

      +--r= w ipv6

      &nb= sp;  +--rw unicast

      &nb= sp;     +--rw route-targets

      &nb= sp;     |  +--rw config

      &nb= sp;     |  |  +--rw rts* [rt]

      &nb= sp;     |  |  |  +--rw rt  = ;       string

      &nb= sp;     |  |  |  +--rw rt-type? = ;  enumeration

 

Hi Dhanendra and All,

 

Are we ok to move the route targets sec= tion out of the AF specific location to where RD is specified? If so, we ca= n define the following common grouping:<= o:p>

 

Dhjain> I think one way to handle th= is is to have separate common groupings for RD and RT. So that we can retai= n 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 reta= in the AF level granularity for RT rules?=

 

Dhjain> Yes, because we have to configure Safi specific import/expo= rt rules separately with an L3 instance.  In the case of L2 the L2vpn = and EVPN instances are separate from the top itself,  having separate = RD/RT.

Thanks,

Dhanendra.

 

       &nbs= p;     |  +--ro route-distinguisher? &nbs= p; string

       &nbs= p;     |  +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value]<= span style=3D"color:black">

       &nbs= p;     |  |  +--ro rt-value  &n= bsp; string

       &nbs= p;     |  |  +--ro rt-type  &nb= sp;  bgp-rt-type<= /p>

 

Otherwise, we can only define a groupin= g without the RD:

 =

       &nbs= p;     |  +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value]<= span style=3D"color:black">

       &nbs= p;     |  |  +--ro rt-value  &n= bsp; string

       &nbs= p;     |  |  +--ro rt-type  &nb= sp;  bgp-rt-type<= /p>

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 autho= rs and contributors on these three BESS YANG models, I=92d hope that one of= them could provide a suggested common grouping. For now, I=92ve added the route-target-type type on which there seems to b= e consensus. 

 

Thanks,

Acee  

 

From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>
Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:23 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura <jef= ftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: Himanshu Shah <hshah@ciena= .com>, "bess@ietf.org"= ; <bess@ietf.org>, "Dhanend= ra Jain (dhjain)" <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 <jefftan= t.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:43 PM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrice Brissette <pbri= sset@cisco.com>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.= org>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

 =

I=92d prefer common grouping indraft-ie= tf-rtgwg-routing-types and references from any other model using it

 

 

Cheers,

Jeff=

 

 

From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.= org> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 08:42
To: Giles Heron <giles.h= eron@gmail.com>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>, "Shah, Himanshu" &= lt;hshah@ciena.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

 =

Hi Giles,

I will add the route-tar= get-type type (enum of import, export, both) but for a general grouping, it= appears there are some discrepancies between the 3 models. Assuming the ty= pes: route-discriminator, route-target, and route-target-type, can you provide a consensus grouping that all the m= odels would use? 

Thanks,

Acee 

 =

From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com= >
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bes= s@ietf.org>, Himanshu Shah <hs= hah@ciena.com>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

 =

Hi Acee,

 =

In general seems that fo= r any BGP VPN (L2 or L3) you have an RD plus a list of RTs (which can be im= port, export or both) - so I=92d prefer that to be defined in a shared grou= ping (more or less as per the structure Patrice gave below) than to force each model to redefine it.

 =

Giles<= /p>

 =

On 10 Feb 2017, at 14:51= , Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

 =

Hi Patrice =96 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 standardizati= on so it doesn=92t hold up standardization of the importing modules. Please= comment as to whether you think this meets BESS requirements. =

 

 

Thanks,

Acee 

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

 

 

 

From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>
Date: Friday, Febr= uary 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Cc: "Dhanendr= a Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com>, Himanshu Shah <hshah@ciena.com= >
Subject: [bess] BG= P common parameter Yang module

 

Folks,

 

As part of EVPN, L2VPn and L3VPN Yang m= odel, there is a =93module=94 common to all 3 Yang models.

 

      |  &n= bsp;  +--rw bgp-parameters=

      |  &n= bsp;  |  +--rw common=

      |  &n= bsp;  |     +--rw rd-rt* [route-distinguisher]=

      |  &n= bsp;  |        +--rw route-dist= inguisher    string<= /o:p>

      |  &n= bsp;  |        +--rw vpn-target= * [rt-value]

      |  &n= bsp;  |           &#= 43;--rw rt-value    string

      |  &n= bsp;  |           &#= 43;--rw rt-type     bgp-rt-type

 

 

It will be interesting to create a comm= on BGP parameter Yang module as shown above. I think it just makes sense.

However, there is a minor challenge; th= at module require a home (a draft).=

I=92m looking for feedback about the be= st place/draft for such a module.

 

Thanks for your help.

Regards,

Patrice Brissette

______________________________________= _________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

 =

________________________= _______________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

--_000_D4C8AB92E7269dhjainciscocom_--