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

tom petch <> Wed, 05 December 2018 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC830130E74; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:12:03 -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 har7pGmCTm1W; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:12:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe1e::70d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1E29130E65; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:11:59 -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=+3okr0+je9nn+djWANZ7faPBdMYCwgZV+vWX+6XkGCk=; b=GUl2jT8e+6lTNZMXZ0h1VLBPwVwAUEchuYxWfA5K6hdGtIEVgj74VWz7yyyD3ToTbJI2j3ajAjRxTGWKSWVVdwALCVGkCCN1zPxVg/yXHNN7DoGUfD52uAFk8LQ2keGxsaHOe0d8eSe7qqZkHtcgNC5SzdnkvhXyRpdALIBYndw=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1404.8; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 16:11:56 +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 16:11:56 +0000
From: tom petch <>
To: "" <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Thread-Index: AQHUi/kQHwUMS6pa80+jhemyQs3Dxg==
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 16:11:56 +0000
Message-ID: <002201d48cb4$eb6d5580$>
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$be184980$> <> <02b901d48c8b$48d5c920$> <31017_1544014638_5C07CB2E_31017_130_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B77DE59@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-clientproxiedby: CWXP123CA0023.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:401:73::35) To (2603:10a6:803:69::18)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR07MB5535; 6:VcVQZBS7/kirKyKnbem2siVt3ZZ+47PTZqYAhlJHF8eS+TEK2wvDpJfru1HkG0wiDNoF55yqvm+CY9CfyQH8qJfkk6UggnMN0Op+zpqa1WF66VZcLaALPVEeMNx7fTFdZ/dNyc3U4dV7vgzqJZn7QzmOEAwxDf/Fkgpl+JNZms1KglZErlqZVhA5m6x2W5JkcfC5x5sQ4O2SZ+hbGweJ3M9TmdiVvpjEzpmNEth3rMwTE7gduDnluWiAZ37GndausCXGMhk06NIiK8XaJi9wyDH4K/aSAd9SzVQOVEi3tyjia0wV7PXm0C8ETVJTNle+YAunIM62wzsz2p56vQuAGhv/IDWJIV/KAm7YZTAxs7X5GhkLFqxr2TjHeZeE0IqABpybKyJu6n2qf+aB7nfq6YNl2ujFer3IJ+N/95E4FTZTaBNAoT+ww3sDQJeh+7LrORa1cCxi1MPuRXwoBWGz5g==; 5:cr27DZHcWy+7o0QpJ2W4rbvHDY2PEe07FJJ9YlGZvkJ3x0mz8io9L1t4tohRT6TNVvahl/zEKfBD8Fdo6tVT/vSuKrJ4cnUpb/OmEwum1aeJqoSForKGZ3gnAtn8EV3SmPWU5+p7xexhp6nQetJ66bhieki36cwjat96nubR56o=; 7:ovVIN46Kin4rEzWtt6eEZljrdhB/vwGxqNxdi/nCmea8jTHXg8JmuKXvh+eZvb3TtUXUFEbuM98RFrLzUszek1v85IP1qyQ2iaZtwfKiU1JHlksEbTfiudoO3f93oGaMD4a6b4QoO0jvbx9J+ZwQ1g==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: eda15809-68db-4e18-9632-08d65acc60a6
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR07MB5535;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB5535:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3231455)(999002)(944501520)(52105112)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:VI1PR07MB5535; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR07MB5535;
x-forefront-prvs: 08770259B4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(376002)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(13464003)(14496001)(14454004)(25786009)(71200400001)(53936002)(71190400001)(6246003)(9686003)(6512007)(3480700005)(86152003)(478600001)(2501003)(68736007)(446003)(476003)(5660300001)(7736002)(305945005)(2201001)(86362001)(97736004)(6116002)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(8936002)(2906002)(6436002)(66066001)(486006)(76176011)(52116002)(99286004)(1556002)(84392002)(3846002)(386003)(6506007)(53546011)(93886005)(33896004)(102836004)(26005)(186003)(14444005)(256004)(229853002)(5024004)(6486002)(316002)(44736005)(110136005)(105586002)(106356001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB5535;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: se7jcdXv9a/JTYDM/jBFEE/hXUBmxBhoQwnwKJ228wsuItDQXZ28Dher+Yxw8aRei3ZK9NJXE18/jnOB32HzlYB78nUxbAQcm9xqF1S+aVojXlw1127rWh/bwUKQr15MGJ/N11r4YvtElfrkN4Ug2PtqwGzBC2I2cQzb60c8hARgf6//S3IDVk21RFqXoMG/csJmyeRByFNMSfQQOpu3IYwtZ2ZUwfbKvm0lgvcUBXdi83FVPvxRnDsrBzKjQVzYpcG8PoKVBgQIoHrzqJVawe7ezKiBGU9Me42USOdsoWY6z5UfOvAXY3SaiWMmWBehLR1oCCHsx/vpCwRBW7Rwwa2QZodUuwG4GmxwcUBN3gw=
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: eda15809-68db-4e18-9632-08d65acc60a6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Dec 2018 16:11:56.4144 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB5535
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 16:12:09 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
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 ?


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
Router IPv6 Address TLV
not the router id.

Meanwhile, te-yang-te-types has

      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 []
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:14
> To: Acee Lindem (acee); LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS;;;
> 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
> 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
> existing router-id if there is one.
> I did look at the documentation of A Major Router Manufacturer and
> 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
> of the I-D that this is not a good idea (I struggle to think of when
> 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>;
> <>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
> 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
> 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
> >
> >     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.