Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on Flex-E YANG model structure [was  RE:CCAMPDigest, Vol 139, Issue 5]

<niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn> Fri, 03 January 2020 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn>
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 8D5E512008C; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 02:36:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 CWw3lLwvGg1l; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 02:36:39 -0800 (PST)
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 46B6B12001E; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 02:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 82EE144222801A5E2358; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 18:36:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 731F3152FAA7264C9F07; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 18:36:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kjyxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.30.12.202]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 003Aa1hO014052; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 18:36:01 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (kjyxapp07[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid17; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 18:36:01 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 18:36:01 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b095e0f19112cb64a9b
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202001031836012280585@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.206.1577157479.6898.ccamp@ietf.org>
References: mailman.206.1577157479.6898.ccamp@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <niu.xiaobing@zte.com.cn>
To: <ccamp-request@ietf.org>
Cc: <ccamp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 003Aa1hO014052
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/zsCdHxNVVXHJxhwXIZ3HC21ho3c>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] =?utf-8?q?Discussion_on_Flex-E_YANG_model_structure_=5Bw?= =?utf-8?q?as_=C2=A0RE=3ACCAMPDigest=2C_Vol_139=2C_Issue_5=5D?=
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: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 10:36:42 -0000

hi,  yuanlong


Please refer to comments entitled with [Xiaobing]




On the contrary, the description in Section 5 of OIF FlexE 2.0 is more specific: "The FlexE Shim is the layer that maps or demaps the FlexE Clients carried over a FlexE Group" and "Each FlexE Client has its own separate MAC, Reconciliation Sublayer, and xMII above the FlexE Shim which operate at the FlexE Client rate." The relationship of a FlexE Client, FlexE Shim and its FlexE Group is rather fixed according to this description.

[Xiaobing] In my opinion, those descriptions exactly support the flexibility between FlexE clients and a FlexE group.




In Rob’s YANG module, the modeling of “client-interface” (similar to flexe-client-list in draft-jiang) actually has an attribute “name if:interface-ref”, which can reference to any internal interface (as described in 7.2.1, unclear what parameter is to be managed yet) or any Ethernet PHY (as described in 7.2.2).

Therefore, it provides the flexibility to support any type of FlexE Client bit-stream (i.e., 64B/66B encoded bit-stream).




Otherwise, if FlexE Client is modeled as standalone and could be associated with different FlexE Groups (assuming there is such a support in the data plane), we can hardly configure anything when its FlexE Group is undetermined, since:


[Xiaobing] The configuration of a FlexE client and group can be performed at different time. Just image you first establish a FlexE group without carry any FlexE client, and then configure some FlexE clients over that group.






BR


Xiaobing Niu