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

tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Fri, 07 December 2018 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 22B9D130F3B; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:14:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.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 bMcJ5d8bn9lT; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20105.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639E7130EFE; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:14:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-btconnect-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=0JeTwW2nLyZwRW3DP/sZED34sZbVEAQyAAxf7hCI/y8=; b=E/MWtAM8TrAIrPVG0NxmQB7ZmQKoimie/1+gK2k1tV9jhaNkQol/nZDrIP0zMoZYBQwdcVT1aNkCpiMmXW0GQqJmdBzZwSGxk6JDppFFRwagmFuRS69P7HunHRPVWdJF0BwNHMbvCJcyFf915x1iKjYLCuHUDFu+ArZhYjoigqQ=
Received: from VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.177.54.82) by VI1PR07MB5328.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.11.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1425.8; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:14:49 +0000
Received: from VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1575:d33b:33dd:c7c4]) by VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1575:d33b:33dd:c7c4%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1425.010; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:14:49 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
CC: Stephane Litkowski <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/kQHwUMS6pa80+jhemyQs3Dxg==
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:14:49 +0000
Message-ID: <00f201d48e50$076e8b40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <576_1542796445_5BF5349D_576_261_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7731BE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <58C71B78-1C6A-4FB5-B64A-7A38628028C1@cisco.com> <19021_1543406661_5BFE8445_19021_254_3_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B776CB0@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <31F7DFA5-7BB5-4E79-AFD9-829AE34BC485@cisco.com> <26904_1543488239_5BFFC2EF_26904_436_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B777AA8@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <00ce01d48bf8$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> <CAEz6PPRMCCtj2yo0RPKnGR-3FadTzt9iuM7Eav_A5fn59enKNw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: LO2P265CA0034.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:61::22) To VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:69::18)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [86.139.215.184]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR07MB5328; 6:Jjq8z2Ht5SbGuGoZNNe8m+UKALU7YGuuPVMYxI6LUM+q5P8JvjnM5cnS7u58v1aHGrM5jZSxysMHRJX21moR6gFW0kfj+Ht2OfJ5Fs4V43NEX8MGdVDsAMMF8wYa6QoTOW/zI36xDBd5Lwij8tnOu80JkggT6Xfgpog5IQrff48kFo1TAEn8gjoHTijACXbh8aU0hiYvhWyFblJr02zrMN6L/yiYrzOIjC0M1gAyz/WLl8fKgya3h/0MyANYIannXvGS2leQgHFLuBGxoSaN72/2ZuhlRODwBR+LBppQYr9RjySbwsFEOkK26bVqhTYVn4gp/Kd515FxZ3mMwjwmYBl0qc7V4zD1lan1GY9iTo+Qft0eh4eMPaY1LEPFdM9SLtgtFaugYS/Gg3/VQ45aatO5C94maaj0PM8xhnVRANZDyOlvjDik6y+iQIpkxx1r9p5L/j3x5kpoVJAL7PvE0Q==; 5:5270gYjgmg2OdVSNdxBWJdTtuf+HwGB8toC7Bgtlqo6Ba/PILmnji6GT9SMkjx+UTkoDotyrdZNIpKBOkfkymus6CuNoVkuSkUI/fr287sAB+acZH+jM9uB2qxoVYYrQ1Th9INhmN/+SlOB4ZPZJNZKQ6UvwMA6u2XWJYnNutAs=; 7:U/KTAK3DJFMM46N1K+XUzwiyk9in6PYxYxQONNPVUuVVYaC57cPQY+dCxTAhEc2EEadXLRBGx/S1wH3zvDyx4Qadt/KTO9vZT37WpjplYBM7mbd/wFL3jnCERxCxf01L3knQ0NkaaDnV3VjX9bujaw==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2406437a-0c1a-4261-263a-08d65c677e17
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600074)(711020)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR07MB5328;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB5328:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR07MB532834BD4CBD227B0D2F9EB7A0AA0@VI1PR07MB5328.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231455)(999002)(944501520)(52105112)(3002001)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558120)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(20161123562045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:VI1PR07MB5328; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR07MB5328;
x-forefront-prvs: 0879599414
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(51914003)(51444003)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(6436002)(66574011)(6486002)(229853002)(2906002)(1556002)(97736004)(39060400002)(68736007)(14496001)(44736005)(14454004)(4326008)(93886005)(33896004)(316002)(186003)(84392002)(26005)(386003)(52116002)(53546011)(102836004)(3480700005)(6116002)(3846002)(76176011)(71190400001)(71200400001)(6506007)(6246003)(8676002)(5660300001)(9686003)(6512007)(106356001)(8936002)(54906003)(86152003)(476003)(53936002)(66066001)(99286004)(86362001)(486006)(14444005)(25786009)(105586002)(7736002)(81156014)(305945005)(446003)(5024004)(110136005)(478600001)(81166006)(256004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB5328; H:VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: qxo8H1aCjL+dC0pwHR6cqPDiwLOYtp7YKG2YJZhMrkuIY4GwfWMGSmCuOyhdyRuwtFv6QSy/hIaoX4hiey4WzyMq3YzfjANYiymqyCc09uYRY0I7/HKWZ0GXpFQ1lCbbtf6yciV3K2uCM1mq8VHq4SaAw67uUuOKoK3uFfMe2XPC+3kzHAUU0Nqvm3JDNYPaauBu3qJKYMaaBJCWvh16zXAmDfCiCuqGuzlAtgclz+XP+gJEbkGSaHsncf4IIPBvMewleyZv/UOBOo3aQ7nEKonZiaNH+xfYqJ6Sbul0THTuojbas/6SJd5r3muXCEZyWu54BINFJEcwVkGn/oAhSSNYzZJKABgkMsWsZRJE8lI=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F6407DA994244445BFF2B4762DE8D6D5@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2406437a-0c1a-4261-263a-08d65c677e17
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Dec 2018 17:14:49.0860 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB5328
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/w9dXszJ8JdETisG9W1LrcToG2Fc>
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: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 17:15:02 -0000

----- 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.
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>