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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 04 December 2018 19:46 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 AE172130E59; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:46:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.96
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, 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 G_e10SKUBGwz; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B9CD130E5A; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:46:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2436; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1543952769; x=1545162369; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=B1W+tg4d4Xq3BRL8aZ0j1vIAh0G6s07lbRYOIdl6ExM=; b=SMUVXjiBHa9t/UGE2MFQE/ZnmXAniRsh1A30XbFSIh28Rj2iVmT8DxNX YTwBd9jQHOGR8ck7D/7b5aaTkDLodZbUD1KiDVN3fo3/hRPc7SNfdxFRC deiyg8P7SeW8PukH46imJidewI7INYFOsYdwV49+HAUOQGnqpz5Cojelu c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAABF2AZc/5BdJa1kGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUgQBAQEBCwGCA4FoJwqDb5QngWiXboF6CwEBhGwCF4JzIjU?= =?us-ascii?q?IDQEDAQECAQECbSiFPQYjEVUCAQgaAiYCAgIwFRACBAESgyGCAqUAgS+EAgG?= =?us-ascii?q?GKoELixMXgX+BECgME4JMiAUxgiYCiQ2XPAkCkT8YkSaJBo9KAhEUgScgATa?= =?us-ascii?q?BVXAVZQGCQYInF41mATZBMYpJgR8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,315,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="208496050"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Dec 2018 19:46:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wB4Jk8Dd014629 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:46:08 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:46:07 -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; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:46:07 -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/ZqVu/AyA
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:46:07 +0000
Message-ID: <41B51A9E-9831-4669-AA87-AFA289303B71@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$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <00ce01d48bf8$be184980$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: <30E3718197852641B0CCBEF5043D8C2E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.155, xch-rtp-015.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/DO29BjWKFI3gCL-d-LayXyu1WuU>
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:46:12 -0000

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