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>om>; "mpls" <mpls@ietf.org>rg>;
<teas@ietf.org>rg>; <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>om>, 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>om>, 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
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>