[i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-15.txt
Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net> Wed, 05 August 2020 17:38 UTC
Return-Path: <dfedyk@labn.net>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845AB3A0E19 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 zK9mOwzbvsO2 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) (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 E3D7F3A0E8D for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw10.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.10]) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FA4175D82 for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 11:38:30 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id 3NN0koJHoDlyd3NN0kzsg8; Wed, 05 Aug 2020 11:38:30 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=QtBwI26d c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10:nop_charset_1 a=y4yBn9ojGxQA:10:nop_rcvd_month_year a=Vy_oeq2dmq0A:10:endurance_base64_authed_username_1 a=HLvPDLHGFjgA:10:nop_election2020_name_subject a=KwIv_cxWQxYHak7Tpn4A:9 a=WiJ_-Dz12mbO2Msl:21 a=hBgeOQhVO5bpUg1-:21 a=0zN2VfR8ED-94fFr:21 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10:nop_charset_2 a=-RoEEKskQ1sA:10:nop_election2020_name_body a=Z5ABNNGmrOfJ6cZ5bIyy:22 a=jd6J4Gguk5HxikPWLKER:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Og5ou9V3w0G0QYKBVJn2AGXXsL9dkBYi7S2ViiAHyIs=; b=DNNUESX/vSiOBxLU8qINDSwn2z kUWxGsDH3dxj2qfrp5WYOL2ZZcJHuqkKDvxGF7sxsBbcQBZ7GpSXn8Kw3Oi68CrWmKYQy17jqWufK UEn56C8JpjgG3M7vUooKzZmYa;
Received: from pool-173-48-105-206.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([173.48.105.206]:58273 helo=FedykLabn) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <dfedyk@labn.net>) id 1k3NN0-003fVl-98; Wed, 05 Aug 2020 11:38:30 -0600
From: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: shares@ndzh.com, 'Scott Mansfield' <scott.mansfield@ericsson.com>, 'Glenn Parsons' <glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 13:38:29 -0400
Message-ID: <01a001d66b4f$3c133b10$b439b130$@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdZrTk/1Fc4GePNcT+iHzdNCMEXHrA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 173.48.105.206
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1k3NN0-003fVl-98
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-173-48-105-206.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (FedykLabn) [173.48.105.206]:58273
X-Source-Auth: dfedyk@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/NtnhmhouhLbSv6nU2xX_wFw0to8>
Subject: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-15.txt
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 17:38:35 -0000
IEEE 802.1 were asked to give feedback on the L2 topology model. We thank the I2RS WG for the opportunity. Executive Summary: An alternative structure to the l2 topology information is suggested. The rational is based on how bridges are described in IEEE 802.1Q-2018 and the structure used models the structure from analogous models. Detail: As a reference we compared the L3 in topology in RFC8346 with L2 in draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-15.txt. module: ietf-l3-unicast-topology augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types: +--rw l3-unicast-topology! augment /nw:networks/nw:network: +--rw l3-topology-attributes +--rw name? string +--rw flag* l3-flag-type augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node: +--rw l3-node-attributes +--rw name? inet:domain-name +--rw flag* node-flag-type +--rw router-id* rt-types:router-id +--rw prefix* [prefix] +--rw prefix inet:ip-prefix +--rw metric? uint32 +--rw flag* prefix-flag-type augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nt:link: +--rw l3-link-attributes +--rw name? string +--rw flag* link-flag-type +--rw metric1? uint64 +--rw metric2? uint64 augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/nt:termination-point: +--rw l3-termination-point-attributes +--rw (termination-point-type)? +--:(ip) | +--rw ip-address* inet:ip-address +--:(unnumbered) | +--rw unnumbered-id? uint32 +--:(interface-name) +--rw interface-name? string This model augments a larger topology model as we understand it. There are nodes and links and then termination points that represent the link attachment to the nodes and ultimately a topology. Comment on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-15.txt. module: ietf-l2-topology augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types: +--rw l2-network! augment /nw:networks/nw:network: +--rw l2-topology-attributes +--rw name? string +--rw flags* l2-flag-type augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node: +--rw l2-node-attributes +--rw name? string +--rw description? string +--rw management-address* inet:ip-address +--rw sys-mac-address? yang:mac-address +--rw management-vlan-id? dot1q-types:vlanid {VLAN}? +--rw flags* node-flag-type Management address addresses the node but tells nothing of the L2 topology. It is an informational attribute. Management VLAN ID is only in context with a management interface. Sys-MAC-address is not an IEEE 802.1 term. Globally unique bridge address is the MAC address that is the base of Bridge identifier and SystemID (the generic form of Bridge identifier) IEEE 802.1 Management MAC addresses are specified for some devices in 802.1Q primarily for Two port MAC relay which by definition has a limited number of ports and is men to be managed in-band. The address may part of a VLAN and reachable over a specific VLAN-ID. (that VLAN ID could be different depending on the interface used.) Management address are common on actual equipment. augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nt:link: +--rw l2-link-attributes +--rw name? string +--rw flags* link-flag-type +--rw rate? uint64 +--rw delay? uint32 IEEE 802.1 Links have portIds or unnumbered identifiers (Shortest Path Bridging). Delay is OK if it is a propagation delay between neighboring bridges. augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/nt:termination-point: +--rw l2-termination-point-attributes +--rw description? string +--rw maximum-frame-size? uint32 +--rw (l2-termination-point-type)? | +--:(ethernet) | | +--rw mac-address? yang:mac-address | | +--rw eth-encapsulation? identityref | | +--rw lag? boolean | | +--rw member-link-tp* -> /nw:networks/network /node/nt:termination-point/tp-id | | +--rw auto-negotiation? boolean | | +--rw duplex? duplex-mode | | +--rw default-untagged-vlan? dot1q-types:vlanid {VLAN}? | | +--rw vlans* [vlan-id] {VLAN}? | | | +--rw vlan-id dot1q-types:vlanid | | | +--rw name? string | | +--rw qinq* [svlan-id cvlan-id] {QinQ}? | | | +--rw svlan-id dot1q-types:vlanid | | | +--rw cvlan-id dot1q-types:vlanid | | +--rw vxlan {VXLAN}? | | +--rw vni-id? vni | +--:(legacy) | +--rw layer-2-address? yang:phys-address | +--rw encapsulation? identityref +--ro tp-state? Identityref This part has a lot of detail. It sees a termination point is a handoff of a particular packet or frame to an interface that specifies it layer and encapsulation. But we are not sure. A link mac-address may be present on a device, but we think it is irrelevant to the model. The encapsulation type is OK as specifying an instance of encapsulation. Lag at this level is a bit confusing. While one could view a LAG as either being a single large link it is useful to have LAG members identified directly for keeping traffic streams on a specific member link. Member-link tp - Is this being used to capture LAG members? We think Auto negation and duplex should be with the link properties. The encapsulation is either no tag, priority tag, one tag C-VID or S-VID or two tags inner C-VID inner S-VID although other combinations are possible. VLAN tags have type priority and VLAN ID. Normally there is the addition or removal of only one tag. (VLAN tag) The VID can be specified here if it belong to the VLAN that support these links. Note in a bridge interface map to a Bridge component that supports a VLAN. There is no mapping of VIDs to bridge components. Instead there is a filter or forward property for each VID on a VLAN. There are also VID translation properties that are not captured by this model. It might be worth stating what the termination point model is expected here. If an Interface and the supported VLANs is desired it would be a list of VLANs identified by names). Then each VLAN would have the supported VLAN-IDs. (Note that is per interface). If just the superset of all expected VLAN-ID received on an interface is portrayed, then that would say nothing about the connectivity to bridge components or the VLANs themselves. The other types of VXLAN and VPLS - We have not covered. An L2 Model analogous to the L3 model: It might help if we show how we think the L2 model could be analogous to the L3 model. Compared to the L3 Model L2 networks have a physical topology of nodes and links and build VLAN tree using spanning tree, RSTP, MSTP or SPB. If IEEE were to build a model analogous to the L3 model but using L2 components it might look something like this: Note: This is a rough L2 physical model that follows the L3 paradigm. module: ietf-l2-topology augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types: +--rw l2-topology! augment /nw:networks/nw:network: +--rw l2-topology-attributes +--rw name? string +--rw flag* l2-flag-type augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node: +--rw l2-node-attributes +--rw name inet:domain-name +--rw description? string +--rw bridge-id uint64 +--rw vlan-name string +--rw management-address* inet:ip-address +--rw management-mac +--rw management-vlan string augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nt:link-group +--rw l2-lag +--rw member[name] +--rw name-ref -> /nw:networks/network/link /l2-link-attribute/name augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nt:link: +--rw l2-link-attributes +--rw name? string +--rw description? String +--rw type ianaift: interface-type +--rw flag* link-flag-type +--rw rate uint64 +--rw delay uint32 +--rw auto-negotiation? boolean +--rw duplex? duplex-mode augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/nt:termination-point: +--rw l3-termination-point-attributes +--rw (termination-point-type)? +--:(ethernet) | +--rw port-number? uint32 +--:(l2-unnumbered) | +--rw unnumbered-id? inet:ip-address +--:(interface-name) +--rw interface-name? string +--rw outer-tag? dot1q-types:vid-range-type +--rw outer-tpid? vid-type +--rw inner-tag? dot1q-types:vid-range-type +--rw inner-tpid? vid-type Explanation of the terms and assumptions: bridge-id* uint64 - This is the 64-bit bridge identifier. It has 4 bits of priority 12 bits of MSTI-ID and the base bridge identifier. There may be multiple one for each spanning tree instance. Note this is the closest analogy to router-id. It is unique per VLAN topology. vlan-name - This is the name of the VLAN. Each VLAN can have any number of VLAN-ID (1-4094). The actual VLAN -ID are not enumerated. Each VLAN instance has a bridge-id. management-mac - this is a MAC address used the bridge management. I can be the Bridge Base VID or other. management-vlan - this is a VLAN that supports the Management address. The actual VLAN ID type and value would be a member of this VLAN. l2-lag - This is a Link aggregation group. The attributes of the members must be the same and any encapsulation is inherited from the actual members. member[name] This is the list of links that belong to the group. Name This is the name of a link in the group as index and reference to a ll2 link. l2-link-attributes This is the L2 link attributes name - This is a string name type - this is an iana type description? String flag* link-flag-type We keep the flags - not sure what the flags are rate uint64 this is the link speed delay unint32 this is link propagation delay (which is a function of distance to the remote link endpoint.) auto-negotiation? Boolean This should belong with the l2 link duplex? This should belong with the l2 links. Termination point. We took a stab at the termination point Note the IEEE bridges support VID translation - we have not capture this it is assumed that all VLAN -id received are accepted as on the wire. The interface maps to the bridge component and the component filters or forwards the traffic. Bridge Components also add and remove tags on the "leg" of the bridge based on the type of component. We have suggested vlan tagging based on terminology similar to l2-sub-interfaces. Typically only one tag is applied at a timebut we have allow for 2. The type value a TPID allows the tags to be set appropriately (one tag or two). Physical topology versus VLAN topology information. Note: We don't believe the L2 document is trying to capture the VLAN topology. The physical topology of Ethernet switches consists of nodes and links. Often these switches support routing as well as well as bridging. VLAN topology is different. VLAN had their origins with LANs and maintain a forwarding style that has served well for 40+ years. VLANS are maintained on switched media today but maintain broadcast, multicast forwarding that enables MAC learning for unicast. Logically a L2 VLAN topology utilizes a forwarding tree and forwards or filters traffic over that tree based on traffic type, VLAN -ID and rules for that traffic type. A VLAN topology is based on a forwarding tree (spanning trees or shortest path trees) that resides on an active topology for that VLAN. The active topology for a given VLAN is part or all of a physical bridged network and may be static or control plan driven. The traffic in a VLAN has a l2 header with a VLAN tag that contains a type, VLAN ID, priority code points and discard eligible indication. The types support Customer (C-VLAN) and Service provider (S-VLAN) or Backbone Service provider (B-VLAN) topologies. The VLAN-ID is a reusable 12 bit identifier that associates traffic to a VLAN at a point in the topology. The Value of the ID may change over the path of the frame as one way to avoid VLAN-ID contention. Within a VLAN type it filters or forwards VLAN-ID tagged traffic based on static or dynamic (control plane) configuration. MAC learning, broadcast and multicast occurs within this constrained VLAN tree. These operations may be across all MACs within a VLAN (shared learning) or MAC-DA and VLAN ID (individual learning). (Note: Shortest path trees have a slightly different behavior based on the SPB type. To keep this explanation simple we will use spanning tree here, but shortest path bridging is compatible with the spanning tree concepts.) It is possible to have a single spanning tree that supports all VLANs ID throughout the whole tree. Simultaneously there could be another spanning tree that is disjoint (no shared interfaces) that also uses the same range and type of VLAN-ID. If at any point int eh network two VLANs share an interface the VLAN IDs must be coordinated on that interface - the VLANs may use the same VLAN-IDs in different parts of the network where there is no conflict. (usually the interface is of a single VLAN type). Best regards Don
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Glenn Parsons
- [i2rs] FW: IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Susan Hares
- [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang… Don Fedyk
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Don Fedyk
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Don Fedyk
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Don Fedyk
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Don Fedyk
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Don Fedyk
- Re: [i2rs] IEEE802.1 Feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-… Qin Wu