Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 10 February 2017 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.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 60613129B3D for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:43:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 AzRmmFrJmXw7 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x243.google.com (mail-pf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::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 947BE129B3B for <bess@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id 68so1136337pfx.2 for <bess@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:43:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :references:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=c9rFqV0JURli+x1DjNwBWQ5rgJoUSmVpe5A3mgpeKMk=; b=YC/feqc34TGj1yKWwDJVj3AaID0z1RC2UwLy4rwjyBUDWLGq2ZduW07JtRe0WJ6C9F 14H4XOxKRSQElkYFYCE911LEGuqRnMz6mBr9Z9gYvZNuRYhWUPzXEs+zOdwuafPavukx rfygek43YmB3N2OZnMmjrZy1SiNzStRxKq7b/6L0BWacJLapN0Vjbs07uJkRhPqQK483 Dj2Vkii1WCwC1l/Gb8raUpQrAFd7bybKDOtkcCUEHKR6jhEkB/wXKXuJZhuAtd3KTYT4 yeGEHvPUzGMCI3iANGCBDSJsAbN4zpy/Et8NVyIvJuKxeDVH1sJyEIKUZB57lEQY8C5y NRnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=c9rFqV0JURli+x1DjNwBWQ5rgJoUSmVpe5A3mgpeKMk=; b=IgJ0wn6pOGctws3kNlzmGwNwggqn0VzgnovkGdRsUGlIxWnpuEa/HBEc0/EiMWQbZM koKzuPfTkHBe0vBdfOAfCV4WGhczlXfQ48ecc4GNH6Yz+H1JwpHetcJ3/Nf3LDgynfBY vFqKU0KBmkn8Q4YI4p5dhyGnWYau6SivmVY0jPot02eoivT89Pp6fUGl+Wq6HR+pXL4j Ds7XSvQSYP8BfhXIZKnyaXeMsKUO95ZUpmm6GffVoIfaMYp8JaosMRJ5Ds2GHXE0DFDJ afWZpYwYJNbESKHpxJCNkdhkTs4sHYj1BEizlFUmYT3IAFcbiyHScnjDpvS03CFYJ9r9 qyVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nv8AMNNIQXHsxd28dZYlBoneYezbQf+i3rxeQZqRLIdmOw3tButoAVEW3kQVVEbQ==
X-Received: by 10.84.170.67 with SMTP id i61mr13437380plb.88.1486755804070; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:43:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.252.209] (107-1-141-74-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.1.141.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m21sm7229449pgh.4.2017.02.10.11.43.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:43:23 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1e.0.170107
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:43:22 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1CA3039-0DAA-45A0-88BA-FD67139451BF@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
References: <D4C33B0D.9C077%acee@cisco.com> <3A8EF0FD-3307-435F-A3BE-F4F90E6B47A1@gmail.com> <D4C356E9.9C0B5%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4C356E9.9C0B5%acee@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3569571803_1635499773"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/nymiJJL8oMn926taNnOVV9xmOOI>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette \(pbrisset\)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, "Dhanendra Jain \(dhjain\)" <dhjain@cisco.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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:43:26 -0000

I’d prefer common grouping in draft-ietf-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.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>om>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>om>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>rg>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <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>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>om>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>rg>, Himanshu Shah <hshah@ciena.com>om>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <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> 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

 

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, February 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Cc: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhjain@cisco.com>om>, Himanshu Shah <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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

 

_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess