Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang
Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Mon, 15 April 2019 07:51 UTC
Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
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 3609512009C; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 118YheS3Vmj0; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 2518812004B; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2CC944ACB528F21C86AB; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:51:40 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:51:39 +0100
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 15:51:26 +0800
From: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: "zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, "senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com" <senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "chen.ran@zte.com.cn" <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re:[Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang
Thread-Index: AQHU8056r5tPZjsC+Eu0jABHgT2bcaY8PM6AgACNGRA=
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:51:25 +0000
Message-ID: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB87D90C@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: 201809061603576337769@zte.com.cn, CAG9=0b+FRrdT+Jg69b4ox2_vObQ0LyxO0QaLBrg3BoQ_0sLjww@mail.gmail.com <201904151430498534056@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201904151430498534056@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.217.214]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB87D90Cnkgeml514mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/fREsqbTBvNQPFE1eOwDV62ecIaQ>
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 07:51:47 -0000
Hi Sandy, Please see my comments below in-line: From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn [mailto:zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 2:31 PM To: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com Cc: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; chen.ran@zte.com.cn; bier@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org Subject: Re:[Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang Hi Senthil, Jingrong, Thank you for your review and comments. I agree with your modification comments about the address-family. [xjr] thanks for having the same understanding about addr-family. 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? [xjr] There is description from rfc8401 section 6.2 that, a sub-sub-tlv with a specific bsl can be allowed only once within a sub-domain. If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple sub-sub-TLVs inside the same BIER Info sub-TLV, the BIER Info sub-TLV MUST be ignored. This allow different BSLs with different encapsulation, as Senthil mentioned, but it may be more clean to use multiple sub-domains for different encapsulations, instead of using different encapsulations in a sub-domain. 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. [xjr] Are you talking about section 6.7.1 Non-deterministic ECMP of 8279 ? I think section 6.7.2 Deterministic ECMP is more general, and in this case, the BIER ECMP number is the number of BIFT tables constructed for a sub-domain. In this case, the BIER ECMP number is a configured number other than the default number <1>, which should be supported anyway (no matter what the ECMP paths to BFERs). Thanks, jingrong Thanks, Sandy 原始邮件 发件人:SenthilDhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com>> 收件人:Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>>; 抄送人:陈然00080434;bier@ietf.org <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>;draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto:chen.ran@zte.com.cn<mailto:chen.ran@zte.com.cn>] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 4:04 PM To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>> Cc: bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>> 收件人:BIER WG <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>> 抄送人:draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org> <draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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