IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 30 May 2019 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@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 98792120132 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 19:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 d0gHGIfql95H for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 19:21:41 -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 C4CBF120118 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 19:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CDD3D80900849B437048 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 03:21:38 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 30 May 2019 03:21:38 +0100
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 30 May 2019 03:21:38 +0100
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 May 2019 03:21:37 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.182]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 30 May 2019 10:21:31 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts
Thread-Index: AdUWjd4LLVLjcSULSP2B6/v6f+ghjQ==
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 02:21:30 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49588FB@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.31.203]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49588FBnkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/hQQuMDrmD9tiNl1KkOUsz2It_P4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts
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: Thu, 30 May 2019 02:21:43 -0000

Acee, I know their difference, I just thought whether BGP RIB should be factored out as a separate draft or move to rtgw-yang-rib-extend since from draft name or title, I can not see rtgw-yang-rib-extend only focus on multi- next-hop support.
The current BGP base model is a little bit heavyweight to me.

-Qin
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2019年5月23日 20:42
收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>; idr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

Hi Qin,

Are you familiar with any BGP and/or router RIB implementations? The global RIB defined in RFC 8349 and the BRIB defined in the draft BGP YANG model you reference are very different things. The BGP RIB (BRIB) should remain under BGP as it is in the existing draft.

Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 2:37 AM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

Hi, authors and all:
It is not clear to me why we define augmentation of the ietf-routing in two different draft, one is in the draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01 which augment common rib building block in ietf-routing with multiple next-hop support,
The other is in the BGP YANG model (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-05#section-2..3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-05#section-2.3>) which augment ietf-routing with BGP RIB specific parameters.
I would suggest to factor out BGP RIB into a separate draft or draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01 and define lightweight BGP model and move forward.
Let me know if you have disagreement on this.

-Qin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email