Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt

<> Fri, 14 June 2019 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A4D12010D for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35XocLE7LXlT for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 086E91200F4 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.66]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45QMb920yZz5xns for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:56:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.76]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45QMb90kjRz8sc5 for <>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:56:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::90fe:7dc1:fb15:a02b]) by OPEXCAUBM7E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::54f9:a664:e400:452a%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:56:21 +0200
From: <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHVIfxdKW7KTit2bk2M/cU8K7eS+KabIL0Q
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:56:20 +0000
Message-ID: <5057_1560520581_5D03A785_5057_221_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924C254D21@OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:56:25 -0000


It's been a long time since I have looked at this model, please find some comments below. Some points may have already been discussed in some threads I may have missed, sorry for that if it is the case :)
- we need to have a consistent naming between protocols on how we call the "admin distance"/"preference", some models use "preference" or "distance", now we have "default-route-distance".
- Similar comment to " use-multiple-paths"
- I found strange to have remote-as and peer-as for example in the same hierarchy. It is a bit confusing especially because two vendors today are using one or the other in their CLI to configure the AS of the peer. Can't we have a subtree with the operational informations to solve this ?
- There is an inconsistent naming between keepalive-interval and keep-alive-configured (why an additional "-" ?)
- what happens when " route-reflector-cluster-id" is not set while "route-reflector-client" is set to true ? which cluster-id is used ?
- regarding add-path, does the model supports only "add-n-path" flavor ? (not add-all-paths)
- do "total-paths" and "total-prefixes" reaaly mean something for a peer-group ?
- is that the role of the core BGP model to define the LxVPN AFs ? Is this done in coordination with LxVPN/EVPN yang model teams ?
- could we have "MED" path selection tuning options as part of " route-selection-options" ?
- LLGR is missing while useful and deployed
- I do not see the AIGP capability activation per neighbor
- what's the difference between hold-time and hold-time-configured (same for keepalive) as both are configurable leaves ? Do you have a min-holdtime option which is deployed and very useful ?
- I was expecting "clear" actions to be RPCs



-----Original Message-----
From: I-D-Announce [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 17:26
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt

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         : Mahesh Jethanandani
                          Keyur Patel
                          Susan Hares
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt
	Pages           : 119
	Date            : 2019-06-13

   This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing
   BGP, including protocol, policy, and operational aspects, such as
   RIB, based on data center, carrier and content provider operational

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There are also htmlized versions available at:

A diff from the previous version is available at:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

I-D-Announce mailing list
Internet-Draft directories:


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.