Re: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01

Chris Bowers <> Tue, 29 July 2014 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3911A0AC1 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uai164N_kaUJ for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF99F1A0AA2 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:37:37 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:37:38 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <>
To: Alia Atlas <>, Stephane Litkowski <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01
Thread-Index: Ac+l4qtZhrh5j6gJR3OwDOjb/Qkn+QAA+BmwAC3vweoA9u/ZgAAib2AAABhWxgAAASXfgA==
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:37:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <4223_1406059402_53CEC38A_4223_4491_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92044506@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <23146_1406621095_53D755A7_23146_1836_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF9205E34E@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 0287BBA78D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(13464003)(24454002)(377454003)(199002)(189002)(4396001)(76482001)(83322001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(2656002)(76576001)(20776003)(76176999)(19300405004)(50986999)(99396002)(64706001)(81342001)(87936001)(81542001)(54356999)(83072002)(85852003)(92566001)(46102001)(77982001)(74662001)(80022001)(15202345003)(79102001)(74316001)(31966008)(15975445006)(19609705001)(105586002)(85306003)(19625215002)(99286002)(74502001)(66066001)(107046002)(106356001)(93886003)(19617315012)(101416001)(33646002)(16236675004)(86362001)(95666004)(21056001)(108616002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB435;; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_88642978e1934ae1bd51942a7808358bBLUPR05MB292namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Hannes Gredler <>, "Wunan \(Eric\)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:37:43 -0000


I agree with Alia that we should find the common information between ISIS and OSPF were it exists.

As a concrete example, maximum link bandwidth, maximum reservable bandwidth, and unreserved bandwidth refer to the same information independent of whether it is carried via ISIS, OSPF, or BGP-LS.  It doesn’t seem that we should be create three parallel data models to describe the same information three times.


From: Isis-wg [] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:42 PM
To: Stephane Litkowski
Cc: Hannes Gredler; Wunan (Eric);
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01

Hi Stephane,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:04 AM, <<>> wrote:
Hi Hannes,

> hmm can we first collect some TE related atrributes that apply both to OSPF and IS_IS before making that call ?
Based on the last discussions we had at IETF, the best solution would be to have TE attributes directly in the ISIS model in a similar way as OSPF rather than trying to define a common augmented model. I think this discussion is similar to the "superset" IGP Link State model where we did not want to go into ...

Is there a reason not to look for common groups of information where we can?  I wouldn't necessarily go for augmenting but for a common group that both ISIS and OSPF could include.

You might also look at draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-network-topo-00 .


> that one might get hairy pretty soon ... as some vendors define their leak policy as prefix, lists and some others call into execution of a policy language.
Right, the issue with policy is more global rather than just an ISIS issue ... it's not really my priority for now ...


-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Gredler [<>]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 17:39
To: Wunan (Eric)
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01

hi eric, stephane,

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 06:04:28PM +0000, Wunan (Eric) wrote:
[ ... ]
|    6. Missing traffic engineering ?
|    [SLI] Only wide metrics are there , but not traffic-eng. I was wondering
|    if TE should be part of a separate datamodel (using augmentation) and so
|    can be used for both OSPF and ISIS protocols    point to discuss
|    [Eric] Agree to be a separate model. That's will be better.

hmm can we first collect some TE related atrributes that apply both to OSPF and IS_IS before making that call ?

[ ... ]
|    8. Missing redistribution related cfg ?
|    [SLI] Route-filters are part of the core data model. But maybe we need to
|    augment stuffs    I did not look at it yet.

that one might get hairy pretty soon ... as some vendors define their leak policy as prefix, lists and some others call into execution of a policy language.

|    9. Multi-topology should allow to configure more besides ipv4-uni,
|    ipv6-uni, ipv4-multi, ipv6-multi
|    These are commonly used configuration which should not be omitted.
|    [SLI] Please provide more details on what you want.
|    [Eric] Multi-topology for non-standard ones. This model should allow this.

do you have a use-case for this ? - any document that you can refer to ?


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.
Isis-wg mailing list<>