Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang
<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Mon, 15 April 2019 09:41 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@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 AC14812003F; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 02:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 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] 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 aqhUlcN7x12Y; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 02:41:04 -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 B8F7F120162; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 02:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 0094C7D5BE3308BFC313; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 17:41:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x3F9etK8018575; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 17:40:56 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 17:40:55 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 17:40:55 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95cb451a7b999b54f
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201904151740557561916@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAG9=0bJBddJyqYrFqBQ0CVifAtE6SRvX5OTWV6-HOi1fZsq-EQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: CAG9=0bLU9VEQxF7OURFsrQwod3y6cw2Lvf3N5hqVoAM1up2uyg@mail.gmail.com, CAG9=0bJBddJyqYrFqBQ0CVifAtE6SRvX5OTWV6-HOi1fZsq-EQ@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: xiejingrong@huawei.com, chen.ran@zte.com.cn, bier@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x3F9etK8018575
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/erK0cIJ3r9M5yGEQ4SdjiM5pdeY>
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:41:09 -0000
Hi Senthil, Sorry for not saying it clearly! I mean that we add the parameter in the BIER OSPF/ISIS YANG augment parts. Like this: augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol/ospf:ospf: +--rw bier-ospf-cfg +--rw mt-id mt-id +--rw bier-global +--rw enable? boolean +--rw advertise? boolean +--rw receive? boolean +--rw ecmp-num? boolean Since we need not compare/vadidate the value with unicast, seems like it won't make great sense to define this parameter. Thanks, Sandy 原始邮件 发件人:SenthilDhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com> 收件人:张征00007940; 抄送人:Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>;陈然00080434;BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2019年04月15日 17:27 主 题 :Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Hi Sandy, (1) Its not appropriate to define the BIER ECMP parameter in ISIS/OSPF Yang.Also, i do not think we need to compare/validate the Unicast and BIER ECMP configuration. Case-1: Unicast ECMP Config = BIER ECMP Config Unicast ECMP = 4 BIER ECMP = 4 Case-2: Unicast ECMP Config > BIER ECMP Config Unicast ECMP = 4 BIER ECMP = 2 BIER would use the first 2 unicast ECMP paths. Case-2: Unicast ECMP Config < BIER ECMP Config Unicast ECMP = 2 BIER ECMP = 4 BIER would use the 2 unicast ECMP paths for 4 BIFT tables. Example, for a given bfr-id, BIFT ECMP table-1 uses Unicast ECMP path1 BIFT ECMP table-2 uses Unicast ECMP path2 BIFT ECMP table-3 uses Unicast ECMP path1 BIFT ECMP table-4 uses Unicast ECMP path2 (2) Remember, BIER might define its own SPF (or) constrained SPF, which is different from IGP SPF. In that case, BIER ECMP paths will be completely different to Unicast ECMP Paths. Thanks, Senthil On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:55 AM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote: Hi Senthil, Thank you for your quick reply too! :-P About the ECMP number, it is OK. Let's add a parameter for it because you insist on it. :-) But seems like it is better to add the parameter in the underlay (OSPF and ISIS) configuration parts for comparing the value with max-ecmp easily. How do you think about it? Thanks, Sandy 原始邮件 发件人:SenthilDhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com> 收件人:张征00007940; 抄送人:Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>;陈然00080434;BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2019年04月15日 15:11 主 题 :Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Hi Sandy, Thanks for the quick reply ! Pls check my comments inline ! - Senthil On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 8:30 AM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote: Hi Senthil, Jingrong, Thank you for your review and comments. I agree with your modification comments about the address-family. Senthil// Cool :) About the encapsulation part: | +--rw encapsulation* [bitstringlength] | +--rw bitstringlength uint16 | +--rw encapsulation-type enum | +--rw max-si? rt-type: uint16 | +--rw bift-id-base? rt-types: bift-id Do you think if it's better to use both BSL and encapsulation-type as the keys? Senthil// Yes. To allow a sub-domain to support many encapsulation-types, both "encapsulation-type" and "bsl" should be key. About the load-balance-num, IMO it's not necessary to define it in BIER. BIER ECMP depends on IGP's ECMP capability. And as Jingrong said, there may be different ECMP path number in different routers. So at most a ECMP enable capability can be showed in BIER model (sub-domain), it's not necessary to define the specific number. Senthil// Multicast routing/forwarding tables and the forwarding procedure itself requires more resources and is expensive compared to unicast forwarding. So i'd prefer allowing the user to configure lesser ECMP number for multicast compared to unicast. Example, Unciast (ISIS/OSPF) ECMP=64, Multicast(BIER) ECMP=4. So, even though there are 64 possible unicast ECMP paths, multicast would only use the first 4 ECMP paths. Thanks, Sandy 原始邮件 发件人:SenthilDhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com> 收件人:Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; 抄送人:陈然00080434;bier@ietf.org <bier@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2019年04月15日 13:45 主 题 :Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang 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 <xiejingrong@huawei.com> 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: chen.ran@zte.com.cn [mailto:chen.ran@zte.com.cn] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 4:04 PM To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Cc: bier@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org 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 <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: 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: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 _______________________________________________ BIER mailing list BIER@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
- [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Xiejingrong
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Xiejingrong
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang chen.ran
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Xiejingrong
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Senthil Dhanaraj
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Senthil Dhanaraj
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Xiejingrong
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Senthil Dhanaraj
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Senthil Dhanaraj
- Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang zhang.zheng