Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model

"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Tue, 27 August 2019 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6389B12010C; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 l630pmcoxjMb; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:44:30 -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 4DF441200F8; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D4A848F5A4F5D01D4F82; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 04:44:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 04:44:27 +0100
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:39:17 +0800
From: "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
Thread-Index: AQHVXE3zIQMIRXNw+E6es9RocuAH86cOU/wQ
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 03:39:17 +0000
Message-ID: <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C90DB78@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <1E61161D6E31D849BEA887261DB609348C8F2E20@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20190826203850.GH24671@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190826203850.GH24671@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.185]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EmasaumROT1mAQHOAzKpcQce4nc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 03:44:32 -0000

Hi Jeff,
 
 Thanks for your reply. 

 I have read this example. But it doesn't solve my doubts. 
 If I have two public bgp instance like this:
    "ietf-routing:routing": {
       "router-id": "192.0.2.1",
       "control-plane-protocols": {
         "control-plane-protocol": [
           {
             "type": "ietf-routing:bgp",
             "name": "bgp0",
             "description": 
               "Bgp for CustomerA.",
             "bgp": {
			 "neighbors":{
			  "neighbor":[
			    {
				 "remote-address":"192.0.2.1",
                   "peer-as":"64497"
	               "afi-safis":{
                     "afi-safi":[
                       "afi-safi-name":"bt:l3vpn-ipv4-unicast"
                      ]
                    }
			    }	
			   ]
		      }
              }
           }
		 ]
         "control-plane-protocol": [
           {
             "type": "ietf-routing:bgp",
             "name": "bgp1",
             "description":
               "Static routing is used for the internal network.",
             "bgp": {
			 "neighbors":{
			  "neighbor":[
			    {
				 "remote-address":"192.0.3.1",
                   "peer-as":"64497"
	               "afi-safis":{
                     "afi-safi":[
                       "afi-safi-name":"bt:l2vpn-evpn"
                      ]
                    }
			    }	
			   ]
		      }
              } 
            }
         ]
       },
   
 And I have two vrf instance like :
    "ietf-network-instance:network-instances": {
      "network-instance": [
        {
          "name": "vrf-old",
           ...
        }
       ]
      }
    "ietf-network-instance:network-instances": {
      "network-instance": [
        {
          "name": "vrf-new",
           ...
        }
       ]
      }

  I want to specify the vrf-old use bgp0 to advertise routes using l3vpn-ipv4-unicast, and use bgp1 for vrf-new to advertise routes using l2vpn-evpn with type5.
  So how can I do this ?

Regards,
Haibo

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 4:39 AM
To: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>;
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:32:01PM +0000, Wanghaibo (Rainsword) wrote:
> Hi authors,
> 
> I have some question about the bgp model.
> 
> In current model, the bgp module will augment to routing,
>      /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
>                /rt:control-plane-protocol:
> And the routing will schema mount to network-instance.
> 
> In this model, how to realize the multiple bgp public instance, like that
> 
> bgp instance 1 as-number 100
>   neighbor 2.2.2.2
> address-family vpn-ipv4
>   vrf vpn1
> neighbor 11.1.1.1
>   address-family ipv4
> 
> bgp instance 2 as-number 200
>   neighbor 3.3.3.3
> address-family vpn-ipv4
>   vrf vpn2
> neighbor 12.1.1.1
>   address-family ipv4
> 
> Bgp doesn't like ospf or isis, the vrf's bgp will associate to public bgp's special address family.
> I'm not find how to describe the associate in current model

The bgp model uses NMDA:
  augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
        + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {

You may find this example from RFC 8349 helpful:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8349

: Appendix D.  Data Tree Example
: [...]
: 
: 
:      "ietf-routing:routing": {
:        "router-id": "192.0.2.1",
:        "control-plane-protocols": {
:          "control-plane-protocol": [
:            {
:              "type": "ietf-routing:static",
:              "name": "st0",
:              "description":
:                "Static routing is used for the internal network.",
:  

The definition of control plane protocols permits multi-instancing via name:

:        container control-plane-protocols {
:          description
:            "Support for control-plane protocol instances.";
:          list control-plane-protocol {
:            key "type name";
:            description

-- Jeff