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

tom petch <> Wed, 05 December 2018 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF99130DDA; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 03:14:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.738
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RATWARE_MS_HASH=2.148, RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME=2.95, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id goaFW8pYtkyA; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 03:13:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46509130DCC; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 03:13:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-btconnect-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=MeyEuiFDvIRf3cJWjL/ZEpOL4K7Ct3Oe+IQuzvOfNyE=; b=Ml0/dADsvT41zA3Q+M2qAKyXP+q24qAzL3NptCC7OJTg/abg1CB7elHqLm+5sAEbCCxr5iksAnqwpUof9pUNbrFMKJq3v7LpmImlWmnChkKR8gafCrchsMkOgdNWhSm/P42ULAjn+QTx1i0GeMqeyOPQvWxOJxhGEEzEdPop/gA=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1404.10; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:13:54 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::1575:d33b:33dd:c7c4]) by ([fe80::1575:d33b:33dd:c7c4%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1404.019; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:13:54 +0000
From: tom petch <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Thread-Index: AQHUi/kQHwUMS6pa80+jhemyQs3Dxg==
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:13:54 +0000
Message-ID: <02b901d48c8b$48d5c920$>
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> <> <26904_1543488239_5BFFC2EF_26904_436_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B777AA8@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <00ce01d48bf8$be184980$> <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-clientproxiedby: LO2P265CA0413.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:a0::17) To (2603:10a6:803:69::18)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR07MB3503; 6:ibGpI2G9/VrmMFveTjwWz5bmChyR5WYQK3C9lk9imPmqxBBJ2N24uEW4VBYbNu745HNNwQ7hIHmFC3TVu5mCiXjZF6UZQkdjvkWYc+E4ipkOHUbbmfPBuHBwi1hUh9JWnf+6J6ZlmV+aKO/nMcDILpBCJd0vjNlpmCl5ACic+TamF503Oc3l2kv1HwvbfWXPv0BVddEzWrNvSvqwSFTwQXhPQ9+oNCKxVnQs41pnJbR9GBwLBjrg8VyvvE2jPRtuY+S55N7rjei9UURCIW/wicSWj/t+fPK/Rz5tfGwJKmsrdVs2VRIsd80CVJ2LJiZYSEzhMc0YTxc2WrjbjhDmOBHjbkoOOx7K0Zok29nb1KLYD6vBZqnUJ2Nv90+FGCpvq45k74ySpjr9e3nW7hgZNkTBbeC4GFsd36/y34HkcOQht8u7WzWumC9Z0q3rYkObEdi+VEn+9f66H69bcvwEEQ==; 5:OSthDQO2Iw/LQhcNowjuTuaKyLuTEVGFn2rj/SIxPqbSJYnyWH/MgxEdWk8uC5j49HPYtLsxCLZFMYPjm0Jv1mFIQi9cv1Lpc/Ficlnj0Kis5n885eUa3AfZt/+NtQAr95yhY7/bgEvBVC4IX4r6Ao8LDFbGM/Aayb2texKQZzI=; 7:r8j4HlGzZEv4axwRsiK4DZoM1ejjws39DJD9Z9QmK2WSvQOqqinNh2A2z1sscSDvcyjM9vxny6Qoq6w1syWniokB/Mmd/9JJ8XA2y4LuxDLQvYTyw+z0WViEjY2W++8QXSv6PqvcEsEl0YAHEn7a4g==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 015dfa90-6dec-435f-d1cb-08d65aa2be03
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3503;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB3503:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(3231455)(999002)(944501520)(52105112)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3503; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR07MB3503;
x-forefront-prvs: 08770259B4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(136003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(13464003)(51444003)(189003)(199004)(52116002)(86362001)(97736004)(33896004)(6506007)(186003)(76176011)(2201001)(486006)(9686003)(6512007)(26005)(386003)(102836004)(446003)(7736002)(305945005)(2501003)(476003)(99286004)(478600001)(71190400001)(71200400001)(5660300001)(256004)(14444005)(25786009)(8936002)(44736005)(14496001)(6486002)(81156014)(81166006)(6246003)(316002)(6436002)(110136005)(68736007)(229853002)(53936002)(14454004)(3480700005)(8676002)(106356001)(105586002)(3846002)(6116002)(66066001)(1556002)(84392002)(2906002)(86152003)(93886005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB3503;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: X/rKF2EB8Lpwf6HwfJ6odl0aPyOQKu5n78mzScAp6zIhOHOX66/CdJa186UusCUFBiicQhscSDJofFNYO3m1RggNYL+iLMTPLKgB9Fm4+maCKf/a0WR8AGxya2as7PpMHehP7AwX5GOMrvckmNWAlaCcwGhaJ5+IOoF/zPkZK2SbfkXB0PWQ+rqpJaO2Pi4DRDtGQswzbL/Gt1EAPlY6no9fayMHLxpHZyYnrpu21qNebhbF/uZ7l2ZEONrGN4/+daA/9boAbp5EPeeZgASfZwy7MI7doAUUAxnQzAuPPG/JKe0sclW8YLdf7E6uwFS588WzZV3jShvQ6N9VissAPozdUDdzD1bDZLbyJhbMoUQ=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 015dfa90-6dec-435f-d1cb-08d65aa2be03
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Dec 2018 11:13:54.0368 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB3503
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:14:02 -0000


(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
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
while the default for a more general router-id, one without te, was
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)" <>
To: "tom petch" <>om>; <>om>;
<>rg>; <>rg>;
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 7:46 PM

> Hi Tom,
> Let me try to explain.
> On 12/4/18, 12:44 PM, "tom petch" <> 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
>     i.e. creating an additional identifier for the same instance of
the same
>     entity is A Bad Thing (which sounds like a good general
>     With two objects in the lsr protocols, that would appear to make
>     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
>     protocol, mutatis mutandi.
>     Tom Petch