Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 12 December 2018 04:25 UTC
Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.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 8977B130DC4; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:25:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 CXq2BgEsCfbY; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd41.google.com (mail-io1-xd41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEF6B12EB11; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:25:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd41.google.com with SMTP id x6so13735773ioa.9; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:25:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XQ8zt2D+Lr+j1gCOEkd7bq3GSfEun7Bt0NQICOqMa+o=; b=P/dkJwehTrzpkbB7yBaxk1q0E+9iSWvzQrE0QdLAxBOckt73+ii/nZmJfQfCK+GYiI hZH3C595q3R3t7SMdQYVgnLxBYfFRVOcym30fE0XVJQF0zn+4SGSqk6bIKAx4pBvIwOt zXtHWnJaH2XjuC8jCJJ54REKczkPqvpvyc309AWXAuyfftxUrY0/TIus/U/3+L4Qx6Dk NcAlPyYzZL08nXB5vF8KH+6zJeHSmb3if40Nl42mhR/j73eM9N8VnUdFT5+il/bIITAp pTqLf9ydYM0fOfcPn8yutflhZtFQWK4gTUlsSNH0pnzVeiDPWQwXWQI4wuQlQCCaJp/m z41w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XQ8zt2D+Lr+j1gCOEkd7bq3GSfEun7Bt0NQICOqMa+o=; b=IaRHS0OYf1wdkqJy1lkj5tOdwtXa1d8/CotRa/6PllmQ3vy6qT9pQVa0o8msO5cmur hq3cRN/bld1daT/Nh/xNbPqclb/JEfKKN2xGC2kMBWpwfCLkO5LCLXQGdIvxOL5e668V d/PxsBdXM8xX1xgtAqY2W+4zJRtwvGzf+2xaq0A3I3tMiFW5LuvlZF4l7GYJ8lZOomMR sMo315VZtsBHuiZGITTeFqxJEAwzFHWEP48sUuMy1UsWwfwjnTvvx8Zn9Kbl7wUCGaVB y9T1IDt6msRYoT+lP+C5Pd1t3z1wnCDpqYCSMUVtlt/IUY8ZDRzHfNB/ZqRSCKf1wiSZ 2LiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbb+oQFA+I1ydTmSb1Nf/xQJjLknHqvesdAjofNACfd+7LNtUaz goy2KYsgdFBA47qi8QaTHvCu7C0dDRBSGX5/x/w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WH1OPdbLEE3QYOizlP6D1N45NfBfX+iPBxBWWU/ZbOv/u9Bk2qBaLRPBQwOMypCjsErFt+zS2qft0OQL2NHIM=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ab85:: with SMTP id u127mr14123692ioe.143.1544588723848; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:25:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <576_1542796445_5BF5349D_576_261_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7731BE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <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> <C13962BC-98F2-4775-8A7C-0DF186B26F4D@cisco.com> <CAEz6PPRMCCtj2yo0RPKnGR-3FadTzt9iuM7Eav_A5fn59enKNw@mail.gmail.com> <00f201d48e50$076e8b40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAEz6PPSk+_Gqh1bVDYoU1X3oDmnyxGjjXf8VCW2jXcLjYvcp4A@mail.gmail.com> <048201d4914c$48295f80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <048201d4914c$48295f80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:25:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPQBi+pnDoay7gyTafr2RLvyWJG0HVaOrT7T1ueEQBH-iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, lsr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000358ba7057ccb9681"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/6styWQK4V2OAIKgsxErPVwiq4jA>
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 04:25:29 -0000
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:25 AM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:47 PM > > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for checking on this. Agree that we need to fix the description > text. What about the following? > > te-node-id: > A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. > The > identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in the dotted-quad > notation. This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address described > in > Section 2.4.1 of [RFC3630], the TE Router ID described in Section 3 of > [RFC6827], the Traffic Engineering Router ID described in Section 4.3 of > [RFC5305], or the TE Router ID described in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC6119]. > The > reachability of such a TE node MAY be achieved by a mechanism such as > Section 6.2 of [RFC6827]. > > Or, would you give a suggestion? > > <tp> > > Looks good. > > One query I cannot answer; should > RFC5786 Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF > TE Extensions. R. Aggarwal, K. Kompella. March 2010 > be there as well? On the face of it, it looks relevant and would appear > to meet a need but I note its absence from ospf-yang; I do not know how > widely it is implemented or used. This RFC is updated by RFC6827. RFC6827 uses RFC5786, making it more generic and more complete, I think. As you said, RFC6827 has updated RFC5786, which is cited heavily in RFC6827. So, logically RFC5786 is already covered. Since RFC5786 does not provide a TE Router ID mapping by itself, I could not figure out a concise wording to cite it separately, so I felt that RFC6827 would be more relevant. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thanks, - Xufeng > > Tom Petch > > Thanks, > - Xufeng > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang > > > > > > Hi Acee, Tom, and All, > > > > Several authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types had a brief > discussion > > on > > this topic. Our take on the te-node-id and te-router-id is: > > > > - In TEAS, the te-node-id specified in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types > has > > a > > wider use scope than IP MPLS TE. The system may or may not run OSPF > TE, > > and > > may not use IPv4. The 32-bit ID number is used only for uniquely > > identifying the TE node, and it may or may not be a routable address. > > - When RFC3630 is implemented, it is ok to map a routable IPv4 address > > (such as the address of loopbak0) to the te-node-id, but it is not > > required. > > - We intentionally use the term "te-node-id" instead of "te-router-id" > > to > > convey the concept that this ID is on a TE node, which may or may or > be > > a > > router. > > - We will clarify the description to say that "This attribute is MAY > be > > mapped to TE Router ID in [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], and > > [RFC6119]." > > > > <tp> > > > > Xufeng > > > > Thanks for the clarification - I understand better now. > > > > However, I think that your proposed text is not quite right. RFC5329 > > does not defined a TE Router ID - in fact, I think that that concept > is > > alien to OSPF. OSPF has a 32 bit number that is the Router ID with no > > requirement for that to be a routable address; which is why (IMHO) > > RFC5329 defines a > > Router IPv6 Address TLV > > which carries a routable address (which can meet the needs of TE). > > > > Likewise, RFC3630, for OSPFv2, does not have the concept of a TE > Router > > ID; rather, it has a > > Router Address TLV > > which specifies a stable IP address (which can meet the needs of TE). > > > > And then there is RFC5786 which defines, for OSPF, the > > Node Attribute TLV > > with sub-TLV for > > Node IPv4 Local Address > > Node IPv6 Local Address > > allowing for multiple TE addresses for different traffic types. > > > > I grant you that RFC6119 defines a > > TE Router ID > > but the concept is alien to OSPF (IMHO). > > > > So, if you want to use the term > > TE Router ID > > then I think that you will need to explain how that maps onto the > > terminology of the existing OSPF RFC. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > Thanks, > > - Xufeng > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:38 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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>; > > > <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>; > > > > <lsr@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>; > > > > <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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and dra… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… stephane.litkowski
- [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd's review of ietf-ospf.yang and… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang Acee Lindem (acee)