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

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 06 December 2018 22:02 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 1ABA21311F5; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:02:56 -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 VsUu8wMdLEsu; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:02:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (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 E0E55130ED4; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id v10so1636565ios.13; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:02:50 -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=ibsrOsv840h/8pzV6Miu7uOzuYfryA6kKILgSko8k/4=; b=Nq0y5ZJFLt1hehKz+wvWInMqc/vsWFaMi11Rbd7gq1sTnT+KPT6Jj3vo0ZCCtBq+Cn eO+rXKA3Ssn1aLcch5PCxmisIg2PIaFO+pvA9gMM8bxsrNE8g1w7pi6R5c3wzR+o4maJ U+g+nEGn+hK8knGvuSKugGhqSvt5om7+9gG14B5EBShKBJnEu641CtAH5QIAu1Gm/an0 BP0hZK2zCNxKvc1TY6wTwctyomy6Bm/FUgXBwBVphktmmcV1vC1oNo0JV1h+eyu7xT6u lYJ/LJBfWBUir1CzZp/gtny+nZ/3g3UK5t18QJba38K6a40xX+QlgiRMMU9Dj2GswXZB BSmw==
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=ibsrOsv840h/8pzV6Miu7uOzuYfryA6kKILgSko8k/4=; b=tBTopeLZVZioxA/Uonw8O2jwQKBixi+lAH4rB7lS5D2ptyQBTup3LyrOM7zPyXT27E hQwx58RJ4b/Cady4rb9KG7huG11okdJ+x8dc6JsoVjF2Fm83JYlNP1HUVJmIVaPRu8lb i0SWqfv4ccsKSxzd8PKFIYD7iY/ZAXKo+Bup6gRs81h6zKtOxo8cDL3SWiiIgL+6LupN PI/qT0oNPHpTlYjxkl4HDGWE/wEvKQi7VP7flVegWUfw9GLlsBfhWc1l/rkMB+Mce4jU 0ai70yXNeTTOnzXxCB4Gtb0aBMBdUSwp++KYOUYGrHuiR4KAhr7A1ykoilzXTrDH/KBt Pm1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaTXdCwl+MVkDzm2ywVBZ7WHr8m6feKwJfl9b1K/Kk4xIofvznM 12ifaWmMGjaAWRrA7BaFI7oSVvErYKYCkwsMGlk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WISk81TTQQ+orHSMJGNVxkkaCU9joXxEZ+GwztAXndGFa28FuAc7J11p+zHdjFNWXgGete8f/L8I/yPKp6tHM=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ab85:: with SMTP id u127mr23532686ioe.143.1544133769971; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 14:02:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <C13962BC-98F2-4775-8A7C-0DF186B26F4D@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C13962BC-98F2-4775-8A7C-0DF186B26F4D@cisco.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:02:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPRMCCtj2yo0RPKnGR-3FadTzt9iuM7Eav_A5fn59enKNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.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="000000000000d85036057c61a85e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Npwq2JI4PyUX-QtXlXGKMksi1U8>
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 22:03:01 -0000

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]."

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.
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>