Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang

<chen.ran@zte.com.cn> Thu, 06 September 2018 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56C0130E06; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 01:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 HerfjsiSCsUg; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 01:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 D3E641277D2; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 01:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id C134D52845857361F29F; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:04:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 9C3FE448C90297DB2FD0; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:04:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with SMTP id w8683u6J092174; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:03:56 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:03:57 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 16:03:57 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95b90df6d44922364
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201809061603576337769@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CF67507D-A18D-485E-9947-70964B4C660D>
References: 16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115A99ABD1D3@nkgeml514-mbs.china.huawei.com, CF67507D-A18D-485E-9947-70964B4C660D
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: xiejingrong@huawei.com
Cc: bier@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn w8683u6J092174
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/0Cx4q_40WoFLIA3snsbgZU1tLjE>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 08:04:16 -0000

Hi jinrong,


Thanks for your review. Please see inline...






Regards.


Ran










原始邮件



发件人:Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
收件人:BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
抄送人:draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org>
日 期 :2018年07月28日 21:01
主 题 :Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang


_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
BIER@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

  some more comments:
one sub-domain should allow miltiple {BSL and the according label block}s as encapsulations, see the igp sub-sub-TLV.

[Ran] We will add them ,and  will add the enternet and IPv6 encapsulation type.

2. should the igp-type change to underlay-protocol-type to allow bgp?

[Ran ]will add it.




From:Xiejingrong

To:BIER WG,

Cc:draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org,

Date:2018-07-28 20:36:25

Subject:[Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang

 


Hi folks,


 


I have the following comments and on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang.


--should the bier load-balance-number/ipa/bar be added to rt:routing/bier-global/sub-domain (like below)? I think they are some basic items.


 [Ran] "load-balance-number"?Do you means the maximum number of ECMP paths? OSPF YANG data model has defined it .In my opinion, it is neccesarry  to define this item here.


 For the ipa/bar will be added to  rt:routing/bier-global/sub-domain.


augment /rt:routing:


   +--rw bier


   |  +--rw bier-global


   |     +--rw encapsulation-type?   identityref


   |     +--rw bitstringlength?      bsl


   |     +--rw bfr-id?               bfr-id


   |     +--rw ipv4-bfr-prefix?   inet:ipv4-prefix


   |     +--rw ipv6-bfr-prefix?   inet:ipv6-prefix


   |     +--rw sub-domain* [sub-domain-id]


   |        +--rw sub-domain-id      sub-domain-id


   |        +--rw igp-type?          igp-type


   |        +--rw mt-id?             mt-id


   |        +--rw bfr-id?            bfr-id


   |        +--rw bitstringlength?   bsl


   |        +--rw multi-bift-number? load-balance-number


   |        +--rw igp-algorithm?     ipa


   |        +--rw bier-algorithm?    bar


 


--should the bier-mpls-label-range-size be changed to ‘max si’ or not ? The type is uint8 and thus seems having to change the meaning. 


 [Ran] Sure.


 


Thanks


Jingrong