Re: [bess] A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 13 March 2019 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <yutianpeng.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 ED6AD130ECE; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 rOqqPZivrLcx; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x133.google.com (mail-it1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (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 D386412798E; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x133.google.com with SMTP id m137so1363905ita.0; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ppR+eN1hwiXmio5oWMCLfcUo9Z5Nz6j99ZMQBhdSo/U=; b=oBkDbhHaKlPh+hCj+y+h6uU0T9w9WlTdBnsIvg/3SsnMoRTzcJ39XDuixgJiZvEXrP pxzSzbt829Lv1jDwlGl8UAXQuGv5DNTEtnis2LAQdL7Ldc8/8RUJ0MAUB4KiHovS+SKg OpNoTJ/tGrgWbT1q3/7lXhlVAJ2hYJxCwecnyfArtNMvSEXJlrq4s9TMKWwEVjw38DPk /4MOd/OPaI0JJMovUOml10v2ERnO1MIskjSIUW9324PZ5NAD/WOKBKj4DD0ZW71DVDC3 mIC0IX03lK4ScAr6EnMGHTXT8JEQKN5zBltLvA6m7gekFqOHkXolz7AGCN7JdpgEyZHd rLsg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ppR+eN1hwiXmio5oWMCLfcUo9Z5Nz6j99ZMQBhdSo/U=; b=TeCi5JCNJbc3lYeDYO/ysMj6k/0NVOfX5uIAERyrOsmcY60dxLsfM7CpUVssGoJh// B9S7q4fu3JlkNhbQquMFa/wOr9JhJYY1qnyCejuOL3+p3XbEAJ7xa5HGPMTno0iZFozc Q4yD2fqnJEp2tttWZ4vmQjuOZz3x1GrfZW1F+eEaTc38j8b+PgAe7loxT1XKSksG7eCw S26q4tRWFO0OzfcIpdoNB9ccQ55r5V5KmfzWjjUkGluVMrc1OaHa4894c+NREuQV3MJx rID9icFywyhYrMGBreGc1XvGdJfWSodkOM8ZpU5iLFYZUOpMgjF60J7myAfgAOUGeTE9 l+mA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVsDF6GqMi8aYOYXt0Pv39QuvzaOaefZtxjvEH4ApuVrl+sCGBl qMpUgJqFJzsv1PKKqLyjianrYYKTXZWNszZ8ysc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwp7Yak9L7Yl5zttKyhzAI9Na5UnpWKhuJ6xwowKPvZYvcnfKmACgf9V+4wUlLiKhasiDotAoKk4hW9epCotRU=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:bdcc:: with SMTP id x195mr974142ite.149.1552463544040; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AM0PR03MB38284FED39C876F0BA4F94209D4A0@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR03MB38284FED39C876F0BA4F94209D4A0@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:52:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKFJ8ergwVfSH=_Ae2hiB3eVHvuui6sH_EhHkuZHLCpnp7inuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang@ietf.org>, bess@ietf.org, Michael Gorokhovsky <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>, Yechiel Rosengarten <Yechiel.Rosengarten@ecitele.com>, Ron Sdayoor <Ron.Sdayoor@ecitele.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011c5420583f51646"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/zUWS6ZPhvcqGTgh1lpyyMcBvTO0>
Subject: Re: [bess] A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
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, 13 Mar 2019 07:52:28 -0000

Hi Sasha,
If you read the beginning of even yang, it has a common leaf which
indicating it is IR or P2MP. But it is globally not per EVI.
So actually I also have a comment here I may forgot to mention in previous
email is that this common leaf should be per EVI basis not globally.
If this info should be included in route leaf, the common leaf actually can
be deleted I believe.
So basically I support what you said.

Hi author,
Thanks for the new version which fixes  a lot.
But I still have some concerns on the current version.
I will try put major ones down later.

Here just quick query on the usage of counter32 in statistics, isn't it
very likely to get full in short time?  If you check interface-yang it
always use counter64. If I calculate correctly, with 1mbps traffic
counter32 will rotate in about 1 hour. Or I miss sth?

Thanks in advance.
Regards
Tim



On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 06:47 Alexander Vainshtein, <
Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I am now reading the draft, and I see that it is a substantial improvement
> over the earlier versions.
>
> At the same time I have a question regarding the definition of Type 3
> (Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag) EVPN route in this (and previous)
> versions.
>
> The YANG definition of this route  runs as following:
> <quote>
>      list inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route {
>                uses route-rd-rt-grp;
>                leaf originator-ip-prefix {
>                  type inet:ip-prefix;
>                  description "originator-ip-prefix";
>                }
>                list path {
>                  uses next-hop-label-grp;
>                  uses path-detail-grp;
>                  description "path";
>                }
>                description "inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route";
> <end quote>
>
> This definition matches the definition of the NRLI of this route in
> Section 7.3 of RFC 7432. But it seems to miss the requirement (stated in
> Section 11.2 of RFC 7432) that this route MUST carry an PMSI Tunnel Type
> Attribute (a.k.a. PTA) as defined in RFC 6514.
>
> The draft also defines a Boolean attribute underlay-multicast of an EVPN
> instance, but it does not explain what this means and how it is used. My
> guess )FWIW) is that this attribute differentiates between EVPN instances
> that use ingress replication and EVPN instances that use P2MP LSPs to
> deliver BUM traffic. But it does not help to identify specific  technology
> used for setting up P2MP LSPs, and does not allow the user to see the
> labels advertised in the PTA.
>
> Did I miss something substantial here?
>
> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
> Sasha
>
> Office: +972-39266302
> Cell:      +972-549266302
> Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:21 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Yang Data Model for EVPN
>         Authors         : Patrice Brissette
>                           Himanshu Shah
>                           Iftekar Hussain
>                           Kishore Tiruveedhula
>                           Jorge Rabadan
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt
>         Pages           : 28
>         Date            : 2019-03-11
>
> Abstract:
>    This document describes a YANG data model for Ethernet VPN services.
>    The model is agnostic of the underlay. It apply to MPLS as well as to
>    VxLAN encapsulation. The model is also agnostic of the services
>    including E-LAN, E-LINE and E-TREE services. This document mainly
>    focuses on EVPN and Ethernet-Segment instance framework.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
> received this
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
> delete the original
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>