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

[Senthil Dhanaraj <[e-mail]>]

Dear Yang Authors,

1) I agree to Jingrong's comment that "Same sub-domain cannot be binded to
both IPv4 and IPv6 underlay". Pls refer the suggested model to handle this
at the end of the mail. Let me know your thoughts/comments.

2) About Jingrong's questions on "Whether same sub-domain can support
different encapsulation types like MPLS and Ethernet" ?
I would think - Yes, a single sub-domain can support many encapsulation
types. Architecturally it is possible that, for a sub-domain, each hop can
chose the encapsulation to be used based on next-hops capability. Yang
model should support it. However, we can discuss and clarify this.

3) A general request to BIER WG is that, we can discuss & progress the yang
work at better pace. Traditionally, yang standards progress slowly in IETF
resulting in implementation with private yang models :(

*Suggested BIER Yang Mode (sd is binded to either ipv4 or ipv6):*


   +--rw bier

   |  +--rw bier-global

   |     +--rw default-encapsulation-type?        identityref

   |     +--rw default-bitstringlength?           bsl

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

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

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

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

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

   |        +--rw addr-family            addr-family

   |        +--rw bfr-prefix?  inet:ipv4-ipv6-prefix

   |        +--rw underlay-protocol-type?  underlay-protocol-type

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

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

   |        +--rw bitstringlength?         bsl

   |        +--rw igp-algorithm?           ipa

   |        +--rw bier-algorithm?          Bar

   |        +--rw load-balance-num         uint8

   |        +--rw encapsulation* [bitstringlength]

   |           +--rw bitstringlength               uint16

   |           +--rw encapsulation-type            enum

   |           +--rw max-si?                       rt-type: uint16

   |           +--rw bift-id-base?                 rt-types: bift-id

Thanks,
Senthil

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:10 PM Xiejingrong <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Chen Ran,
>
>
>
> [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.
>
>
>
> [XJR1]:
>
> Yes I found the load-balance(max-ecmp) configuration in OSPF-yang and
> ISIS-yang, but I think they are different things, and there should be a
> load-balance-number for BIER specifically:
>
> (1)     A BFR may not support BIER ECMP forwarding, while unicast ECMP is
> supported.
>
> (2)     There may be different number of paths to different BFERs, for
> example BFER2/BFER2 may have 3/5 paths separately on a BFR, and this BFR
> may want a special load-balance-number 15 for better balancing.
>
>
>
> [XJR2]:
>
> Second question:
>
> Is it allowed for both IPv4-encapsulation and IPv6-encapsulation being
> under a single Sub-domain ?
>
>
>
> augment /rt:routing:
>
>    +--rw bier
>
>    |  +--rw bier-global
>
>    |     +--rw sub-domain* [sub-domain-id]
>
>    |        +--rw sub-domain-id            sub-domain-id
>
>    |        +--rw underlay-protocol-type?  underlay-protocol-type
>
>    |        +--rw mt-id?                    mt-id
>
>    |        +--rw bfr-id?                   bfr-id
>
>    |        +--rw bitstringlength?          bsl
>
>    |        +--rw igp-algorithm?            ipa
>
>    |        +--rw bier-algorithm?           bar
>
>    |        +--rw af
>
>    |           +--rw ipv4* [bitstringlength bier-mpls-label-base]
>
>    |           |  +--rw bitstringlength               uint16
>
>    |           |  +--rw bier-mpls-label-base          rt-types:mpls-label
>
>    |           |  +--rw max-si?                       max-si
>
>    |           +--rw ipv6* [bitstringlength bier-mpls-label-base]
>
>    |              +--rw bitstrin+--glength            uint16
>
>    |              +--rw bier-mpls-label-base          rt-types:mpls-label
>
>    |              +--rw max-si?                       max-si
>
>    |
>
>
>
> The RFC8279 said, a BIER sub-domain must be associated with a single
> routing underlay (see below). I would understand IPv4 and IPv6 as different
> underlay.
>
>    If multiple routing underlays are used in a single BIER domain, each
>
>    BIER sub-domain MUST be associated with a single routing underlay
>
>    (though multiple sub-domains may be associated with the same routing
>
>    underlay).
>
>
>
> [XJR3]:
>
> Third question, maybe for the BIER WG.
>
> It may also be helpful to discuss and conclude, if it is allowed for both
> BIER-MPLS encapsulation and BIER-Ethernet encapsulation being under a
> single sub-domain?
>
> I feel it unnecessary since one can use different BIER Sub-domains
> carrying different encapsulations, and thus an MVPN service using BIER
> doesn’t have to specify the encapsulation-type.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 06, 2018 4:04 PM
> *To:* Xiejingrong <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang
>
>
>
> Hi jinrong，
>
> Thanks for your review. Please see inline...
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Ran
>
>
>
> 原始邮件
>
> *发件人：*Xiejingrong <[e-mail]>
>
> *收件人：*BIER WG <[e-mail]>
>
> *抄送人：*[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
>
> *日 期 ：*2018年07月28日 21:01
>
> *主 题 ：Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang*
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>
>
>
> some more comments:
>
> 1.  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:*[e-mail],
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>