Re: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Acee: 

 

Is your input individual input or input from the routing architecture for yang models? 

 

<I2RS chair hat on> 

The routing architecture for yang models is incomplete without the consideration of the I2RS ephemeral state and I2RS architecture.  Asking the I2RS WG to change a document that is in WG LC based on an incomplete architectural document is not reasonable.  An alignment between  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/ without the consideration of the I2RS ephemeral state is an incomplete alignment and a problematic  approach for I2RS WG’s efforts.   

 

In a volunteer organization, each person has the right to makes choices in what they have time to do.   If you do not have bandwidth to provide an adequate routing architecture for yang models that considers ephemeral state or its needs, that is your choice.  Unless you have a concrete proposal for the ephemeral state that covers I2RS RIB and  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/, the I2RS WG LC will be closed after 2 week (11/23 – 12/7) WG review of the in draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt.     

 

Please remember that the I2RS RIB model has two parts:  I2RS Informational Model and I2RS Data Model.  The I2RS Informational Model and the I2RS Data Model have descriptions on the soft tunnel provisioning as mechanisms.  Questions at this point must demonstrate a knowledge of these documents or suggest specific changes to the documents.   If you wish to raise the following questions, please do this in light of specific sections that include both the I2RS Informational Model, the I2RS Data Model, and I2RS architecture. 

 

a)      I2RS tunnels must include additions beyond encapsulation, 

b)      Why the I2RS Informational Model and the I2RS Data Model do not provide the soft tunnel provisioning or describe the specifics of this provision?  

 

The I2RS Informational Model has examples for these tunnels.  You are welcome to make proposal for specific changes to the I2RS Informational Model or the I2RS Data Model.  The I2RS Informational Model has completed WG LC so the bar for substantive comments is high.    

<I2RS chair hat off> 

 

Cheers, 

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 7:30 PM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Sue, 

 

From: i2rs <[e-mail]> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:45 PM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Resending to I2RS WG. 

 

From: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:33 PM
To: 'Jeff Tantsura'; 'Acee Lindem (acee)'; 'Mach Chen'; '[e-mail]'
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Alia Atlas'; 'Benoit Claise (bclaise)'
Subject: RE: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Jeff and Acee: 

 

Your suggested change goes against the WG adopted RIB Information draft that has been discussed for over 2 years.  The informational draft has been through WG LC and you did not make any suggestions or comments during the WG LC.  Any change of this matter is not simply something you indicate to the authors, but needs to be discussed on the WG as a direction change for the RIB IM/DM models.

 

Independent of the I2RS efforts, milestones, and processes, I think we need to address whether provisioning all these tunnels via RIB installation is  appropriate and, additionally, consistent with other WG YANG models. In many cases, it would seem there are tunnel attributes other than the encaps that need to be provisioned. At a minimum, I think you’d need to either reference an RFC describing soft tunnel provisioning or describe the specifics of this provisioning. 

 

 

Prior to moving this change through WG adoption cycle, the routing architectural team needs to have: a) concrete proposal for the ephemeral state that covers I2RS RIB and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/  and  b) I requested this input of Acee Lindem as a representative of the routing architecture team.   

 

The  identification of this problem with tunnel provisioning is a direct outcome of this effort. 

 

 

 

I will be glad to work with you on a concrete proposal that you can send to the email list and present at the I2RS interim meeting on 12/16/2015 (10-11:30am ET).

 

I will continue to work on ietf-routing alignment but don’t have the bandwidth for the above. 

 

Acee 

 

 

 

 

 

 Sue Hares 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 4:27 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee); Mach Chen; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Hi Mach,

 

I agree with Acee’s comments and would encourage you to use generic/existing tunnel model(s), please see comments provided during RTGWG meeting in Yokohama.

There are already too many, we need to rationalize this work.

 

This is what has been discussed in Yokohama, Robin presented

 

-- draft-li-rtgwg-utunnel-yang

   -- draft-li-rtgwg-tunnel-policy-yang

   -- draft-wwz-netmod-yang-tunnel-cfg

   -- draft-zheng-intarea-gre-yang

   -- draft-liu-intarea-gre-tunnel-yang

   -- draft-liu-intarea-ipipv4-tunnel-yang

 

Cheers,

Jeff

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 11/23/15, 11:56, "i2rs on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" < <mailto:[e-mail][e-mail]> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

 

>Hi Mach,

> 

>I’m looking at draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt and it still 

>includes all the tunnel encaps. I know you received several comments 

>that those should be in the tunnel model(s) and this I2RS RIB model 

>should merely reference an imported tunnel abstraction. How are you 

>going to address this? It seemed that the consensus (and an opinion 

>that I share) was that this model should not attempt to generically 

>created tunnels via RIB/FIB entries.

>Thanks,

>Acee

> 

>On 11/23/15, 2:23 AM, "i2rs on behalf of Mach Chen" 

>< <mailto:[e-mail][e-mail]> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

> 

>>Hi,

>> 

>>We just uploaded an update that addresses the comments received 

>>(include online and offline) recently. Please review the draft and comment!

>> 

>>Thanks,

>>Mach

>> 

>>> -----Original Message-----

>>> From: i2rs [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 

>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 3:16 PM

>>> To:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>>> Cc:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>>> Subject: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

>>> 

>>> 

>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 

>>>directories.

>>>  This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System 

>>>Working Group  of the IETF.

>>> 

>>>         Title           : A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Base

>>> (RIB)

>>>         Authors         : Lixing Wang

>>>                           Hariharan Ananthakrishnan

>>>                           Mach(Guoyi) Chen

>>>                           Amit Dass

>>>                           Sriganesh Kini

>>>                           Nitin Bahadur

>>>        Filename        : draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

>>>        Pages           : 65

>>>        Date            : 2015-11-22

>>> 

>>> Abstract:

>>>    This document defines a YANG data model for Routing Information Base

>>>    (RIB) that aligns with the I2RS RIB information model.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

>>>  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/

>>> 

>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:

>>>  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04

>>> 

>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:

>>>  <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 

>>>submission  until the htmlized version and diff are available at 

>>>tools.ietf.org.

>>> 

>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

>>>  <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> i2rs mailing list

>>>  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

>> 

>>_______________________________________________

>>i2rs mailing list

>> <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

> 

>_______________________________________________

>i2rs mailing list

> <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

_______________________________________________

i2rs mailing list

 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs