Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang
tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Thu, 15 November 2018 13:02 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4105D128D0C; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:02:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.196
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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 WimGUYYb3Imp; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr30097.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.3.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E56A126DBF; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:02:43 -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=3CZ6hF/ir8hX1b3IxX3NAwJm7bbBXphOVaeqUT8YiZk=; b=Fiaav0QbTB077oHalMPclVr/0riYpd5QtdASy7T4Njh6DLIGdXhB+TNF01GxfkN1cgWMivL+O/tqqHqigUXnx81VoBPqDnMpLB2Ceeg7pwlVPnrNByObsvPo7it8Suiq9+MriN507JJ98lKQUG+y2Mqtgw1zAvya0pP/aZS1oYM=
Received: from VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.177.202.206) by VI1PR07MB3439.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.175.244.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1339.17; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:02:41 +0000
Received: from VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::929:bd11:beb6:b887]) by VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::929:bd11:beb6:b887%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1339.021; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:02:41 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang
Thread-Index: AQHUe02wlCMgQUKxOkmdNrRJZT0IYw==
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:02:41 +0000
Message-ID: <020501d47ce3$3dde8280$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <151871655164.7468.17697751302068907872@ietfa.amsl.com> <03b001d3a714$5e08dce0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <A7C87BD7-A6E5-474F-9D19-F3B9A6F83DA4@cisco.com> <001001d4767d$62fb1a40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <00c901d478f6$25a75c00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <060801d47b4d$730cbd60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <8482D196-9EE8-4469-94FA-0DEF1B595252@cisco.com> <006d01d47b74$cde44920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <6513C0AA-1E1E-4E4D-A9F6-6349F0F5E049@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: LO2P265CA0060.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:60::24) To VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:9b::14)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [86.128.101.213]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR07MB3439; 6:k666eBuZzE+khASGSOt6QjrKU0V69YEMudpPgbhgc2zIGz+YRuLS2fx+miq7ycXSaHberzteMq5jZn7x24iFu40FxrP7kEv/vCujfswIsolkrcReI3NLIfdwk4V7tMlOZ//zZoOedUNv19/TlNM59vqiJu/Pjhvsb0tqS5Ug3RcMhhGKL0DOi3J2PiU2qTkfqob9n1hhi4k7SNyksWkFRTV7GQTYRsv7bPg8R4QmYKGADsoUgVfOwesrCSGdSGdmCtLp0nm/eDulk9YqMCU4s86X9HvVqvVQTtAsemSLsjJkAq0mah+6mglqC3QjC9ymayTszoO2pmDa9sr8Kb7d4AOBPlYaANQ9cW4FRU2GFDiJjV+0prz90XqOjBeXwNGOUySp7JrVRiV/4i+C3pOIN6R9PQMtPFWw8VgWUCN9nEZDuQXFR6Sk8nlZ0lqazh+EMyFqJP2NXaTzaZQQnOoyVA==; 5:91+3uPXCf9ktSYyWpP5g0e4PmPsdCFOx8bwQZRpvbIFhvNAsyvxz1i58NCcs/8oF0tUvFfil2Z0zg5DsfAZs3Xor8DswNGOC9K3kux76vB8/1cXFk290aAktNWxTiAuxzGa34H2XnyPuUSBSbY3NKdLyZzhcZ73iv/rSh8aOQ54=; 7:PfWkxICzvsN4bZx/lYyFURF490JmC2/2dICq+T+ST4ehUh1pLK8yuG9b7HeN1UhzpJ3IafB4wcg+rPw8ukrK3ieywBUgXcUbL7Nf5ZLZH4NZ4hsPKqzD/A9AikDmbqruSbCag/0vOUBXLEBgUhwlDQ==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3a1ef10c-ea02-4585-c4ec-08d64afaa005
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3439;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB3439:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR07MB3439FA578D7D82BDA4AAF1A6A0DC0@VI1PR07MB3439.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3231415)(944501410)(52105112)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(20161123562045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3439; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR07MB3439;
x-forefront-prvs: 08572BD77F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(54094003)(13464003)(51914003)(37854004)(199004)(189003)(110136005)(86362001)(84392002)(316002)(305945005)(7736002)(6246003)(478600001)(476003)(256004)(2900100001)(2201001)(2501003)(3846002)(6116002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(99286004)(229853002)(93886005)(86152003)(6486002)(6512007)(9686003)(6436002)(1556002)(53936002)(44736005)(97736004)(14496001)(105586002)(52116002)(5660300001)(81156014)(8676002)(81166006)(8936002)(6506007)(53546011)(26005)(68736007)(386003)(102836004)(186003)(33896004)(76176011)(106356001)(2906002)(4326008)(25786009)(14454004)(486006)(446003)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB3439; H:VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 3k8n7JUIRsrcyYexfQ8hxgMBK7j8vaBBRFkI0ZWQa6JZ9ohvUx8RO2PgFF3zRLPsvmtk78eTdayMyyxd2lzRSBTEhOyG7+5VLUFgAS+4tZKvMml7gh4dc+Zvn4GV9GUl3O+wo/z5GNpp8PuuFlDPuHwn/L9n33za6AbYUuw7h/dqJr1PeQwq7w7f7qS6etyYoyKYQivsjcc4LDgqrZTe2RD2O2+GBJezB4O6LwZhBGV4p4jdy2OyQ/RtZ5wViy8Y/h+TWPpUeChO8m842CG6adEhANKtQZtjlcMb5IlnUQ1QueWzVTiLRw/7k3KrDkCfXYXcEvql4im1zSsSasJcXrQVWzfc6wTjqdXsikqxzes=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1FB57348467D2A4CB2263CDC0E0DE549@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3a1ef10c-ea02-4585-c4ec-08d64afaa005
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Nov 2018 13:02:41.3859 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB3439
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/-Ni-kojwT8GfWQ_MRuY__Zytsms>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:02:47 -0000
Tarek Thanks for the explanation. I did some more digging on Address Families and have posted my thoughts to rtgwg; any one WG looks fine, look across the Routing Area and I think the work would benefit from more coordination. On the more specific topic of this I-D, there are already several definitions of mpls address families e.g. identity mpls-address-family { base "address-family"; description "MPLS RIB address family."; } in draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model and that may be a challenge to resolve. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com> To: "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; "mpls" <mpls@ietf.org>; <teas@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org> Cc: <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 2:24 PM Subject: Re: Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang > + draft-ietf-ospf-yang authors > + teas alias to comment on the utility of TE router-ID in the OSPF YANG model for other non-MPLS technologies too. > > Hi Tom, > > Inline.. > > -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> > Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 12:19 PM > To: Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org> > Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 4:31 PM > > > Hi Tom, > > > > Thanks. To me, RIP/OSPF/PIM/BGP are all control plane protocols and > would think should exist below /routing/control-plane-protocols. > > MPLS on the contrary is a forwarding augmentation to existing V4/V6 > routing table(s) (which are already defined at path > /routing/ribs/rib/routes/route/next-hop ) - the MPLS augmentation > carries additional mpls specific data. > > There are signaling control plane protocols specific to exchange MPLS > labels (e.g. RSVP-TE, LDP) which I expect will exist at > /routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol (e.g. > draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp) > > Tarek > > Yes, so BGP is out of line, but that is a problem for another WG. > > The MPLS quirks are IMHO twofold. > > Why define an address family? I always think of AFI/SAFI when someone > says address family and I do not see MPLS figuring in that context. > [TS]: MPLS can augment routes in the V4/V6 AFI routing tables defined in RFC8349. However, there are other type of MPLS routes (cross-connects) that are not associated with an IP prefix or an AFI defined in RFC8349. Examples of such routes can be RSVP-LSP labels/cross-connects, per L2 or L3 VRF de-aggregation labels, etc.).. Such routes will exist in the new MPLS AFI table. > > Second, what are MPLS and MPLStunnel doing in the Interface Table? Ok, > they are a carry over from the MIB but do they have any role here? > [TS]: currently, this is enabling MPLS on the specific (sub)set of interfaces and setting minimal set of attributes - e.g. MPLS MTU. > > I am fishing for some 'when' (or if-feature) statements alongside the > 'augment' > to make the augment conditional (although perhaps not as many as TEAS > created:-). Instinctively I feel there should be something as e.g. OSPF > has although accepting your point about MPLS not being a protocol; but > then mpls-ldp is a protocol but has no conditionals that I can see. > [TS]: I think the assumption was MPLS is a base functionality that most router vendors will support - so we've avoided an if-feature check. However, I can see that some devices may not support MPLS (or may not turn MPLS), so we can look into adding a when or feature check to control augments to external YANG models. For MPLS LDP, yes, I think they can add the same for signaling MPLS. However, I am aware LDP protocol can be used for non-MPLS signaling too (e.g. ICCP) - so the LDP YANG modeling team may need to look at what augments can be controlled/associated with MPLS. > > At a slight tangent, I see in OSPF and others references such as > container mpls { > description "OSPF MPLS config state."; > container te-rid { > if-feature te-rid; > ie conditional but not on MPLS per se. > > [TS]: Yes, although traditionally enabled for MPLS-TE, the TE router-ID can apply to non-MPLS technologies too (e.g. for GMPLS OTN, etc.).. IMO, Ideally this would not need to exist under mpls container.. We may need to raise this with OSPF team. > > Regards, > Tarek > > Tom Petch > > > Regards, > > Tarek > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> > > Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 7:37 AM > > To: Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org> > > Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" > <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org> > > Subject: Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang > > > > I wonder if the IETF has yet worked out how to model routing > protocols. > > I asked, what is MPLS? Looking at various modules, I see > > > > RIP > > augment > /routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol: > > +--rw rip > > +--rw interfaces > > > > OSPF > > augment > /routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol: > > +--rw ospf > > +--rw areas > > | +--rw area* [area-id] > > | +--rw interfaces > > > > the other IxxxGP > > module: ietf-ixxx > > augment /routing/ribs/rib/routes/route: > > +--ro route-type? enumeration > > augment /interfaces/interface: > > +--rw clns-mtu? uint16 > > augment > /routing/control-plane-protocols/:control-plane-protocol: > > +--rw ixxx > > +--rw enable? boolean {admin-control}? > > +--rw system-id? system-id > > +--rw area-address* area-address > > > > BGP > > augment "/routing-policy/defined-sets" > > module ietf-bgp { > > +--rw bgp! > > +--rw global > > +--rw afi-safis > > +--rw afi-safi* [afi-safi-name] > > +--rw ipv4-unicast > > +--rw ipv6-unicast > > +--rw l3vpn-ipv4-unicast > > > > PIM > > module: ietf-pim-base > > augment /routing/control-plane-protocols: > > +--rw pim! > > +--rw address-family* [address-family] > > | +--rw address-family identityref > > | +--rw <per address family configuration> > > +--rw interfaces > > +--rw interface* [name] > > +--rw name if:interface-ref > > +--rw address-family* [address-family] > > > > MPLS > > > > module: ietf-mpls > > augment /rt:routing: > > +--rw mpls > > augment /routing/ribs/rib/routes/:route: > > +--ro local-label? rt-types:mpls-label > > augment > > > /routing/ribs/rib/routes/route/next-hop/next-hop-options/simple-next-hop > > : > > .... > > identity mpls { base address-family; > > > > Different! which is right? Perhaps none of them. It is very > early days > > for routing YANG modules, no RFC, limited experience. I am > mindful that > > it took several years after the publication of the initial system > YANG > > modules for the advent of NDMA - a radically different approach - > so > > perhaps in a few years we will be looking at the routing modules > and say > > it needs a different approach. Sigh > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > > > > > > >
- [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-05… internet-drafts
- Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yan… t.petch
- Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yan… Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yan… Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yan… tom petch
- Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yan… tom petch
- [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang tom petch
- Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-ya… Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-ya… tom petch
- Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-ya… Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-ya… tom petch
- Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-ya… tom petch