IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bess] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with COMMENT)

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 19 May 2021 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 140BA3A10E9; Wed, 19 May 2021 07:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAY_BE_FORGED=0.846, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Yq12CTd9zpTa; Wed, 19 May 2021 07:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 017133A10F0; Wed, 19 May 2021 07:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (vs4.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.122]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 14JE3BXO005907; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:03:11 +0100
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1822203A; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:03:11 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs4.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A324C22042; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:03:11 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (65.151.51.84.dyn.plus.net [84.51.151.65] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 14JE3AOg019448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 19 May 2021 15:03:10 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Robert Wilton' <rwilton@cisco.com>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway@ietf.org, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, 'Matthew Bocci' <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
References: <162143039539.553.10952042172482288657@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <162143039539.553.10952042172482288657@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 15:03:09 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <049501d74cb7$b391c540$1ab54fc0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQL6GzVU2e6NrWv9wI4vQ65te/jv8ailNC4A
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.51.151.65
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-26168.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--0.188-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--0.188-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-26168.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--0.188300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: HXSqh3WYKfvxIbpQ8BhdbBriZI4JYHjfWFD61I1iNuaqvcIF1TcLYIm9 9KFCUKgfxUZILmgL2PGjQvy39BtpkTqb3mQO+NFO3nHtGkYl/VpmeiXWxEsGzRlLPW+8b7Saiiq okckdfZZdnAwqEZq/994fvwiLwWPLnvp70Y6l9ApKtJAbYAprcy+w46aA6jWZFujNgNeS9UClmQ XE120jThzIkZ3gYQNBcuyA7PJbdgyPaFHMfVTC4IMbH85DUZXyU6s2nlVTnzX6C0ePs7A07fcUt 5lc1lLgkU6UkIr/V+0KReJY8Wr3RS655N435iICFn7Jeh/wPnja9HGk+YZvU8adhJg3wY63zG2y R6Wc/i6SL5cZEb8O4LEnV355CXEpzxd2Odw2q75SkTcz1MHGCrCf48ZV53d3afcR7jPQH1IinlG zjbYHk3tWcHWSNHdfhlgoQegIE+c=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/x76ONfzr-tmHUbhlyvB3kCjChYc>
Subject: Re: [bess] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 19 May 2021 14:03:21 -0000

Hi Rob,

Interesting question.

> COMMENT:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The draft has a manageability considerations section - thanks - but I would
> like to check whether assignment of the SR domain identifier would expect to be
> configured via YANG?  If so, is there a YANG data model in the works that will
> cover this functionality?  Having an informational reference to the data model
> may be helpful to readers.

It is hard to predict the expectations in this regard.
CLI, TL/1, YANG, DHCP?

I think that in the fullness of time, if the approach described in this document takes off, then I would expect to see YANG management available.
At the moment, however, I'm not aware of any work (presumably to augment BGP and/or SR models), so nothing to point at.

Compare and contrast with how VPN IDs are configured, and how long we lived with VPNs before we had a "standard" way to configure them.

Cheers,
Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email