[Idr] FW: BGP yang data model question
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Mon, 13 November 2017 22:43 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 7A371124239 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:43:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Y5eiI9O9ukqd for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECB1E120724 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:43:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=31.133.157.12;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
References: <F8F51622-6B72-4B5E-99EF-7FC924D7ABA4@ciena.com> <572ABC62-EAF9-4110-BBCC-BF35B20827DA@ciena.com> <BN3PR0201MB086749D72937643DCFE00819F1660@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <BN3PR0201MB0867E8DB27BF352986EF4DC4F1660@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <00ab01d33308$7037dae0$50a790a0$@ndzh.com> <18B62DF3-35BA-414D-ADD5-4F878018EA64@ciena.com> <FDBB77EE-12A9-40DF-8740-9303842BF334@arrcus.com> <528A2C12-93F0-4F58-8603-FE414DAB39FF@ciena.com>
In-Reply-To: <528A2C12-93F0-4F58-8603-FE414DAB39FF@ciena.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:43:12 -0500
Message-ID: <01a301d35cd0$cb00b310$61021930$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A4_01D35CA6.E22FB420"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQHrkDrcd9Z1BvRlwJjgxyypkQn0CQKw3dAxAhFtlO0CLMjfZwH8LKbUAcQrKnYCGcg6BQC1npmDonaKIHA=
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UopYlzXwdrx5Z8imycAKB28aPCc>
Subject: [Idr] FW: BGP yang data model question
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:43:27 -0000
Forwarding comments from Himanshu. Sue Hares From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 1:48 AM To: Keyur Patel; Susan Hares; 'Xufeng Liu' Subject: Re: BGP yang data model question Forwarding as reminder as per today’s WG question. Please see at the bottom for the information. Thanks, Himanshu From: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> Date: Friday, September 22, 2017 at 2:47 AM To: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'Xufeng Liu' <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> Subject: Re: BGP yang data model question Hi Himanshu, As Sue mentioned we should have an updated model soon for you to review. Furthermore, some of the commands you listed MAY NOT be present in the base model as they belong in what we call as augmented model. The breakdown detail will be made available soon. Hope all is well otherwise. J Regards, Keyur From: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 11:45 AM To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'Xufeng Liu' <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> Subject: Re: BGP yang data model question Sue – We are in the middle of implementation and would like to see this resolved sooner than later. Any relief you can offer? Thanks, Himanshu From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:36 PM To: 'Xufeng Liu' <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, 'Keyur Patel' <keyur@arrcus.com> Subject: RE: BGP yang data model question Xufeng: We’re working on a revision to the BGP model. I’m mid-way through checking the model. Let me finish that so you can see it, and then I’ll send these questions over the weekend. Sue Hares From: Xufeng Liu [mailto:Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 9:19 AM To: Shah, Himanshu; shares@ndzh.com; Keyur Patel Subject: RE: BGP yang data model question Sending to Keyur’s correct email address. Thanks, - Xufeng From: Xufeng Liu Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:22 PM To: 'Shah, Himanshu' <hshah@ciena.com>; keyupate@cisco.com; shares@ndzh.com Subject: RE: BGP yang data model question Hi Himanshu, These configuration attributes were existing in the draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhdankin-idr-bgp-cfg-00, which was merged with https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shaikh-idr-bgp-model-01 later on. These attributes were taken out after the merge. I think that the reason was because of the OC philosophy of taking minimum commonly used feature set. It is good that you are bringing up this topic again, which can be further discussed. I believe that Keyur may have more to say on this. Thanks, - Xufeng From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:05 PM To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>; keyupate@cisco.com; shares@ndzh.com Subject: Re: BGP yang data model question Now with right sue’s address.. Thanks, Himanshu From: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 8:59 PM To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng_liu@jabil.com>, "keyupate@cisco.com" <keyupate@cisco.com>, "hares@ndzh.com" <hares@ndzh.com> Subject: Re: BGP yang data model question Including Keyur and Sue Hares.. Hi Keyur and Sue – Can you answer the question below? It seems like there are bunch of configurable on per address family per neighbor, But IDR yang data model does not support it. Cisco and other routers do support these configurables (seems like they have their own yang data file). Do you know why such limitation in IDR yang data model? Thanks, Himanshu From: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:30 PM To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng_liu@jabil.com> Subject: BGP yang data model Hi Xufeng – Why are below attributes not available at per neighbor per address family in BGP IETF yang data model? Cisco supports them in their legacy BGP implementation. ipservices(config)#router bgp 100 ipservices(config-router)#address-family vpnv4 unicast ipservices(config-router-af)#neighbor 1.1.1.1 ? activate Enable the Address Family for this Neighbor additional-paths Additional paths in the BGP table advertise Advertise to this neighbor allow-ebgp-vpn Allow VPN Routes to be exchanged over EBGP connection allowas-in Accept as-path with my AS present in it attribute-unchanged BGP attribute is propagated unchanged to this neighbor distribute-list Filter updates to/from this neighbor filter-list Establish BGP filters maximum-prefix Maximum number of prefix accept from this peer next-hop-self Disable the next hop calculation for this neighbor prefix-list Filter updates to/from this neighbor remove-private-AS Remove private AS number from outbound updates route-map Apply route map to neighbor route-reflector-client Configure a neighbor as Route Reflector client route-server-client Configure a neighbor as Route Server client send-community Send Community attribute to this neighbor weight Set default weight for routes from this neighbor ipservices(config-router-af)#neighbor 1.1.1.1 Thanks, Himanshu
- [Idr] FW: BGP yang data model question Susan Hares