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

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Mon, 17 June 2019 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.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 DC76A12000E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 23:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 0BRh5Dg7Ub9l for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 23:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4CA6120106 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 23:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45S1ms3L18zCtpg; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:40:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.98]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45S1ms5GSmzyPk; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:40:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::90fe:7dc1:fb15:a02b]) by OPEXCAUBM7F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d9:d3cd:85bd:d331%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:40:29 +0200
From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHVIfxdKW7KTit2bk2M/cU8K7eS+KabIL0QgAAL3QCABD4x0A==
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 06:40:28 +0000
Message-ID: <6830_1560753629_5D0735DD_6830_59_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924C25507C@OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <156043955127.12459.13802113725310697417@ietfa.amsl.com> <5057_1560520581_5D03A785_5057_221_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924C254D21@OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20190614155137.GM23231@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190614155137.GM23231@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pIKkwiaCB1Op_0FlmYpBoS_Zing>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 06:40:34 -0000

Hi Jeff,

> - 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 ?

[JH] Generally a negotiated value vs. the configured value.  Similar issue in BGP
MIB.

[SLI] In this case, IMO the negotiated value should be a RO value.

Brgds,

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 17:52
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-06.txt

[Not speaking for the authors, but I've done a recent initial review.
Definitely needs more work.]

Stephane,


On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:56:20PM +0000, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote:
> - LLGR is missing while useful and deployed

LLGR isn't even an IDR draft right now.  It's not really appropriate to have
in the base yang module for BGP.

This rather goes back to a conversation I had some years ago: IDR must
decide what the "base" features of BGP are.  Things like route reflection,
confederations, damping, aigp, etc. are included in the module in spite of
the fact that they are completely *optional* extensions to 4271.

This is thus not the RFC 4271 yang module.  How much beyond that we should
go is an interesting question.

But for things that haven't even hit RFC, we should certainly keep them out
as extensions until then.

> - 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 ?

Generally a negotiated value vs. the configured value.  Similar issue in BGP
MIB.

-- Jeff

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.