Re: [CCAMP] A Recap of Update to Draft "YANG Data Model for FlexEInterface Management"

Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com> Wed, 17 July 2019 06:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19658120162 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 23:29:19 -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, 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 cJ-aAv_29HC5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 23:29:15 -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 7394412006D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 23:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2459910840F4DB08B400 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:29:13 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.62) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:29:12 +0100
Received: from lhreml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.62) by lhreml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:29:12 +0100
Received: from DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.33) by lhreml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:29:12 +0100
Received: from DGGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.81]) by DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::74d9:c659:fbec:21fa%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:29:01 +0800
From: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
To: "wang.qilei@zte.com.cn" <wang.qilei@zte.com.cn>
CC: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re:[CCAMP] A Recap of Update to Draft "YANG Data Model for FlexEInterface Management"
Thread-Index: AQHVO3ZdzezWCIyC+EinsFX1P5Xzk6bOJJsQ
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:29:00 +0000
Message-ID: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BD358275A@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: 3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BD3581694@dggeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com <201907160932020330296@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201907160932020330296@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.74.202.215]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BD358275Adggeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/y_jUsvuutsydUaAGhuvp36KUbfg>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] A Recap of Update to Draft "YANG Data Model for FlexEInterface Management"
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:29:19 -0000

Hi Qilei,

I would be glad to see more analysis and rationale on the FlexE YANG work.
But IMHO, two key references are not included in your draft draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-control-analysis-02<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-control-analysis/>, i.e., OIF-FLEXE-02.0 “Flex Ethernet 2.0 Implementation Agreement”, and OIF-FLEXE-ND-01.0 “FlexE Neighbor Discovery Implementation Agreement”. I would encourage you to give more analysis on these two fundamental documents.
Considering that OIF-FLEXE-ND-01.0 already provides discovery and negotiation capability, I think it would be a duplicate work for you to do this type of things in the FlexE YANG. Furthermore, these features will complicate the YANG module unnecessarily.
Please see my further comments inline.

Thanks,
Yuanlong

From: wang.qilei@zte.com.cn [mailto:wang.qilei@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:32 AM
To: Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re:[CCAMP] A Recap of Update to Draft "YANG Data Model for FlexEInterface Management"


Hi Yuanlong,



Thanks for your introduction about the updates.

May I suggest we give some analysis and rationale description in the slides presented. I think this could make us easier to figure out which one is better. We also submit one companion draft draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-control-analysis-02<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-control-analysis/>, trying to give some analysis.



I also suggest we focus on the detail about FlexE specific modelling work instead of more on interface. If I understand correctly, interface/sub-interface management is a general topic. It depends on how to model FlexE.



In addition, some questions for discussion about interface mentioned in the email:

1), if we treat FlexE as a kind of typical Ethernet, then do we need to define additional interface for FlexE? or we can use FlexE group identifier to do this?

YJ: Yes, our draft proposes a new interface type for FlexE Group. We model the FlexE Group as an interface, because a FlexE Group has the common characteristics of an interface, e.g.,  identifies a stream of network traffic (potentially at any layer); an anchor point to apply features and protocol forwarding configuration on that stream of traffic; it can be enabled/disabled and monitored as a whole. Not sure how a FlexE group identifier can accomplish this.

2), whether FlexE client can be model as a separate layer? Because the answer of this question can help clarify whether we need to define interface/sub-interface for FlexE client.

YJ: Yes, definitely our draft also proposes a new interface type for FlexE Client.

I would put some material/description about these issues in the slides.

Thanks

Qilei








原始邮件
发件人:Jiangyuanlong <jiangyuanlong@huawei.com<mailto:jiangyuanlong@huawei.com>>
收件人:CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>) <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>;
抄送人:draft-jiang-ccamp-flexe-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-jiang-ccamp-flexe-yang@ietf.org> <draft-jiang-ccamp-flexe-yang@ietf.org<mailto:draft-jiang-ccamp-flexe-yang@ietf.org>>;
日 期 :2019年07月15日 20:36
主 题 :[CCAMP] A Recap of Update to Draft "YANG Data Model for FlexEInterface Management"
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp


Dear CCAMPers,

After the IETF 104th meeting, some authors of draft-jiang-ccamp-flexe-yang and draft-xiaobn-ccamp-flexe-yang-mod had twice met and discussed the possibility of combining these two drafts.  But authors of the two drafts had quite different opinions on the target and methodology of the FlexE YANG model, thus we decided to update the drafts in its own right until our WG makes a decision on how this work shall be proceeded.

Here is a brief summary of draft-jiang-ccamp-flexe-yang ("YANG Data Model for FlexE Interface Management"):
1. the philosophy of the model is treating a whole FlexE Group as an interface, and treating the Flex Clients in a FlexE Group as sub-interfaces, so that the same interface logic applies (i.e., familiar  flavor).
2. Since a FlexE client is decoupled from the FlexE PHYs, it is modeled as a new type of interface, so that new FlexE clients can be more appropriately modeled, and more easily be augmented to support  some new MAC layer features, such as flow control, and etc.
3. it is modeled as a simple flat tree, and leave out internal data plane implementation dependent artifacts where management and control planes do not care much, such as FlexE Instance, Calendar  A and B.
3. it uses the nomenclatures which are more compatible with the YANG style in the IETF.
Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-ccamp-flexe-yang-01 for the details. Your comments and involvements will be much appreciated.

Best regards,
Yuanlong