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

Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Sat, 28 July 2018 13:01 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 E4DD0124C04; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.004
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 UK_bRxvHdQo8; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:01:24 -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 61AE2130DD2; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 842AF92E9D48B; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:01:20 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:01:21 +0100
Received: from NKGEML514-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.68]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:01:14 +0800
From: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang
Thread-Index: AQHUJnMQPgoFuiu7LkeDTadk4LelJw==
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 13:01:13 +0000
Message-ID: CF67507D-A18D-485E-9947-70964B4C660D
References: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115A99ABD1D3@nkgeml514-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115A99ABD1D3@nkgeml514-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CF67507DA18D485E994770964B4C660D_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/z3rt3aQAGlae25iyeL40uR9HsOM>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 13:01:26 -0000

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

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.


Thanks
Jingrong