Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 06 December 2018 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB53130E86; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:37:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 BWxENH13kIfg; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4636F130E5C; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:37:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12268; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1544117874; x=1545327474; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=uhEC5hOYLfTrWoA+44bjaaeewKlA3OTW/mQaSNlOEJM=; b=gCzGVVehN7ffsMvpyk/VeFAJkgwM/PKT3b0tBLefQc/7yZha2KokCDWY 7gc6uSwhStwqqhZMlg7XVaW7fwKNC2L6elZdccYrveoauHjxlKS0Pc3OG choAAfW8ENtiBVL/o31IVT2+eciNferaau8ZqrUQSe+SHbepmnTNbEXAI U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAAcXglc/5tdJa1kGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgVopgWgnCoNwiBmMD4FoJZdOFIFmCwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BhGwCF4J+IjQJDQEDAQECAQECbSiFPAEBAQMBIxEzHgQCAQgRBAEBAQICIwM?= =?us-ascii?q?CAgIwFAEICAIEARKDIYF6CKYTgS+EAgGGJ4ELixQXgX+BEAEnDBOCTIROARI?= =?us-ascii?q?BHxcPgl4xgiYCiREIMowhinMJApFEGIFchRWKRYkOj1cCERSBJx84ZHFwFWU?= =?us-ascii?q?BgkGCJxd/AQiMXgE2QTGJA4EfgR8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,323,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="208726665"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Dec 2018 17:37:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wB6Hbqms002941 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:37:53 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:37:51 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:37:51 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Thread-Index: AQHUi/kT6LQa9fvqSUmy655qm6w/ZqVx/OCA
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:37:51 +0000
Message-ID: <C13962BC-98F2-4775-8A7C-0DF186B26F4D@cisco.com>
References: <576_1542796445_5BF5349D_576_261_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7731BE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <58C71B78-1C6A-4FB5-B64A-7A38628028C1@cisco.com> <19021_1543406661_5BFE8445_19021_254_3_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B776CB0@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <31F7DFA5-7BB5-4E79-AFD9-829AE34BC485@cisco.com> <26904_1543488239_5BFFC2EF_26904_436_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B777AA8@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <00ce01d48bf8$be184980$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <41B51A9E-9831-4669-AA87-AFA289303B71@cisco.com> <02b901d48c8b$48d5c920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <31017_1544014638_5C07CB2E_31017_130_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B77DE59@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <002201d48cb4$eb6d5580$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <002201d48cb4$eb6d5580$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <7A3869519273B5468D84258DBB7B868E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.153, xch-rtp-013.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/6R1uBJT2D1laCxVeKEMVxodJq0o>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 17:37:59 -0000

Hi Tom, 
I think the only action here is for the authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types to fix their te-node-id definition. As for the OSPF Router ID and OSPF/ISIS TE Router IDs we can't change the decades old definitions to achieve uniformity. 
Thanks,
Acee

On 12/5/18, 11:12 AM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:57 PM
    
    > Hi Tom,
    >
    > I think that having a different router-id configured per protocol is a
    matter of deployment. I don't think that we can impose anything in this
    area. There are use cases where it is good to have separate router-ids
    per protocol or instances of a protocol. For instance, when a router is
    part of multiple "administrative domains", it is worth having separate
    router-ids per admin domain.
    >
    > However I have a concern about the router-id or te-node-id  bound to a
    32 bits number only. How do we do in a pure IPv6 network ?
    
    Stephane
    
    I am used to configuring a router-id as a 32-bit number with no
    requirement for that to be an address that can be accessed over the
    internet (so I have always found the idea of 'loopback0' unfortunate).
    Yes, the router needs to be addressable, but merging that concept with a
    router id has always seemed to me unfortunate because they are two
    separate concepts.  (In fact, I would regard good practice as giving a
    router multiple addresses for different functions, so that e.g. syslog
    can be separated from SNMP or FTP).
    
    Thus I have no problem with a 32-bit router-id in an IPv6 network.
    Indeed, RFC5329 defines a 32-bit router-id in an OSPFv3
    Intra-Area-TE-LSA.  It is the Router IPv6 Address TLV that carries the
    128-bit address.
    
    When ospf-yang says
             container te-rid {
               if-feature te-rid;
               description  "Stable OSPF Router IP Address used for Traffic
                  Engineering (TE)";
               leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address; description
                   "Explicitly configure the TE IPv4 Router ID.";
               }
               leaf ipv6-router-id {
                 type inet:ipv6-address;
                 description "Explicitly configure the TE IPv6 Router ID.";
    
    then that is when I wonder what is going on.  That looks to me like
    configuring
    Router IPv6 Address TLV
    not the router id.
    
    Meanwhile, te-yang-te-types has
    
       te-node-id:
          A type representing the identifier for a node in a topology.  The
          identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in the
          dotted-quad notation.  This attribute is mapped to Router ID in
          [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], and [RFC6119].
    
    Well, I disagree with their choice of YANG type but agree that it is
    32-bit and not 128.
    
    Tom Petch.
    
    > Brgds,
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
    > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:14
    > To: Acee Lindem (acee); LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; lsr@ietf.org;
    draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org; draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org
    > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
    >
    > Acee
    >
    > (Top-posting because the indentation usually fails)
    >
    > On the TEAS te-types, I had a quick look at where
    > typedef te-node-id
    > is used and the answer is lots of places, because it is part of
    >   grouping explicit-route-hop {
    >     description    "The explicit route subobject grouping";
    >     choice type {
    >       description   "The explicit route subobject type";
    >       case num-unnum-hop {
    >         container num-unnum-hop {
    >           leaf node-id {
    >             type te-types:te-node-id;
    >             description   "The identifier of a node in the TE
    > topology.";
    > and YANG uses of that grouping are many, in several WGs; however,
    > because it is a grouping, then the impact of changing the type should
    be
    > minimal at least in terms of the I-Ds.
    >
    > On the multiple router definitions, my research of the IETF memo only
    > came up with the two cited RFC which, to me, say that you should use
    an
    > existing router-id if there is one.
    >
    > I did look at the documentation of A Major Router Manufacturer and
    while
    > they did not give any advice, the default for a te router-id was
    > loopback0
    > while the default for a more general router-id, one without te, was
    > loopback0
    > which gives me the message, you can make them different but SHOULD NOT
    > (in IETF terminology).
    >
    > So while I agree that the two lsr modules should allow per-protocol
    > configuration, I think that it should carry a health warning in the
    body
    > of the I-D that this is not a good idea (I struggle to think of when
    it
    > would be a good idea, to use three separate identifiers for, say, BGP
    > and the two lsr protocols).
    >
    > Tom Petch
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
    > To: "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>om>;
    <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>om>;
    > <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>rg>;
    > <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 7:46 PM
    >
    > > Hi Tom,
    > >
    > > Let me try to explain.
    > >
    > > On 12/4/18, 12:44 PM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >     The router id in this I-D confuse me.
    > >
    > >     RFC8294 defines
    > >          typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad;
    > >
    > > Some implementations configure a global router-id while others only
    > allow it at the control-plane-protocol level. This is why we have it
    in
    > both places.
    > >
    > >     ospf-yang defines
    > >      leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address;
    > >
    > > For better or worse, OSPF has a separate TE address that is routable
    > and referred to as the TE router-id. You'll note that this is part of
    > the te-rid container in both the OSPF and IS-IS YANG models. We could
    > add "-te-" to the leaves to avoid confusion.
    > >
    > >     draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types defines
    > >       typedef te-node-id {     type yang:dotted-quad;
    > >      ...       This attribute is mapped to Router ID ....
    > >
    > > This is just wrong. It is a routable address in the IGP TE
    extensions.
    > I've copied the draft authors.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Acee Lindem
    > >
    > >
    > >     Three different YANG types for a router id.
    > >
    > >     Why?
    > >
    > >     Behind this, ospf-yang gives as references for a router te id
    > >     RFC3630(V2) and RFC5329(V3).  Reading these, my take is that a
    > router id
    > >     is needed for te but that the existing id should be used where
    > possible
    > >     i.e. creating an additional identifier for the same instance of
    > the same
    > >     entity is A Bad Thing (which sounds like a good general
    > principle).
    > >     With two objects in the lsr protocols, that would appear to make
    > at
    > >     least three identifiers for the same instance of the same
    entity.
    > >
    > >     Why?
    > >
    > >     I copy Stephane on this since the same issues apply to the other
    > lsr
    > >     protocol, mutatis mutandi.
    > >
    > >     Tom Petch
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    ________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >