Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[e-mail]>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>; "Xufeng Liu"
<[e-mail]>; "Mahesh Jethanandani"
<[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt


> Indeed.
>
> It would be useful to have routing protocol independent structure for
address-family and minimize the duplication in abstraction (and
implementations).

If you can agree what an address family is.

I know it as part of BGP and then came across it in other YANG modules
and ended up concluding that there was no common ground as to what an
address family is. I think that RFC8349 got it wrong in its use of
address family.

So, define an address family and I will show you why it does not apply
in all cases!

Tom Petch

> --
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
>
> From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)"
<[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 10:57 AM
> To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>, Mahesh Jethanandani
<[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt
>
> I agree – the BGP hierarchy is wrong. Address-family is generally
higher both abstractly and in implementations.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Xufeng Liu
<[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 10:30 AM
> To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IDR List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt
>
> Hi Mahesh,
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:48 PM Mahesh Jethanandani
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Xufeng,
>
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Xufeng Liu
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Mahesh,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> I'd like to comment on the new changes at a high level:
>
>
> 1) rib extension
>
> This paradigm is inconsistent with other protocol models like ospf and
isis, where the protocol specific routes are kept under the protocol
instance tree, not under the /rt:routing/rt:ribs. Based on RFC8349, the
/rt:routing/rt:ribs tree is used to model the routes per routing
instance, which is better mapped to the Route Manager (whose name varies
depending on the implementations).
>
>
> While that might be true, routes in the BGP model currently are
maintained at the per-address family level.
>
> It is fine that routes are maintained at per-address family level,
which is also done by other routing protocols. The question is how the
tree hierarchy is structured.
> OSPF model has the following:
>
> module: ietf-routing
>   +--rw routing
>   |  +--rw control-plane-protocols
>   |  |  +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name]
>   |  |     +--rw ospf:ospf
>   |  |        +--ro ospf:protected-routes {fast-reroute}?
>   |  |        |  +--ro ospf:af-stats* [af prefix alternate]
>   |  |        |     +--ro ospf:af   iana-rt-types:address-family
>   |  |        +--ro ospf:unprotected-routes {fast-reroute}?
>   |  |        |  +--ro ospf:af-stats* [af prefix]
>   |  |        |     +--ro ospf:af        iana-rt-types:address-family
>   |  |        +--ro ospf:local-rib
>   |  |        |  +--ro ospf:route* [prefix]
>   |  |        |     +--ro ospf:prefix        inet:ip-prefix
>   |  |        |     +--ro ospf:next-hops
>   |  |        +--ro ospf:statistics
>   |  |        +--ro ospf:database
>   |  |        |  +--ro ospf:as-scope-lsa-type* [lsa-type]
>
> ISIS model has the following:
>
> module: ietf-routing
>   +--rw routing
>   |  +--rw control-plane-protocols
>   |  |  +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name]
>   |  |     +--rw isis:isis
>   |  |        +--rw isis:interfaces
>   |  |        |  +--rw isis:interface* [name]
>   |  |        |     +--rw isis:name   if:interface-ref
>   |  |        +--ro isis:database
>   |  |        |  +--ro isis:level-db* [level]
>   |  |        |     +--ro isis:level    level-number
>   |  |        |     +--ro isis:lsp* [lsp-id]
>   |  |        |        +--ro isis:decoded-completed?   boolean
>   |  |        |        +--ro isis:raw-data?     yang:hex-string
>   |  |        |        +--ro isis:lsp-id        lsp-id
>   |  |        +--ro isis:local-rib
>   |  |        |  +--ro isis:route* [prefix]
>   |  |        |     +--ro isis:prefix       inet:ip-prefix
>   |  |        |     +--ro isis:next-hops
>
>
> This BGP model uses operational state sub-tree mostly from the
OpenConfig model, but OpenConfig does not augment ietf-routing and uses
separate global tree. If we keep the OpenConfig sub-tree, it would be
better to structure the BGP rip as following:
>
> module: ietf-routing
>   +--rw routing
>   |  +--rw control-plane-protocols
>   |  |  +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name]
>            +--rw bgp:bgp
>               +--rw global!
>               +--rw neighbors
>               |  +--rw neighbor* [neighbor-address]
>               +--rw peer-groups
>                  +--rw peer-group* [peer-group-name]
>               +--ro bgp-rib
>                  +--ro attr-sets
>                  |  +--ro attr-set* [index]
>                  |     +--ro index                   uint64
>                  +--ro afi-safis
>                     +--ro afi-safi* [afi-safi-name]
>                        +--ro afi-safi-name       identityref
>                        +--ro ipv4-unicast
>                        |  +--ro loc-rib
>                        |  |  +--ro routes
>                        |  |     +--ro route* [prefix origin path-id]
>                        +--ro ipv6-unicast
>                        |  +--ro loc-rib
>                        |  |  +--ro routes
>                        |  |     +--ro route* [prefix origin path-id]
>                        +--ro ipv4-srte-policy
>                        |  +--ro loc-rib
>                        |  |  +--ro routes
>                        |  +--ro neighbors
>                        |     +--ro neighbor* [neighbor-address]
>                        +--ro ipv6-srte-policy
>                           +--ro loc-rib
>                           |  +--ro routes
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
>
> 2) module ietf-bgp is missing
>
> Is it intentional to remove the main module ietf-bgp? The description
says that bgp model augments the ietf-routing, but there is no such an
augment statement in the draft. I assume that the augment statement is
in the main module ietf-bgp.
>
>
> That was indeed a cut-and-paste error. The next version of the draft
will have the ietf-bgp module.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:20 PM Mahesh Jethanandani
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> This update of the draft adds support for:
>
> - augmentation of the Routing Management Model.
> - augmentation of the routing policy model
> - support for RIB
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> > On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:16 AM,
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the
IETF.
> >
> >        Title           : BGP YANG Model for Service Provider
Networks
> >        Authors         : Keyur Patel
> >                          Mahesh Jethanandani
> >                          Susan Hares
> >       Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04.txt
> >       Pages           : 138
> >       Date            : 2019-02-26
> >
> > Abstract:
> >   This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and
managing
> >   BGP, including protocol, policy, and operational aspects based on
> >   data center, carrier and content provider operational
requirements.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model/
> >
> > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-04
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-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<http://tools.ietf.org/>.
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>