Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Fri, 12 February 2016 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099491A1BB8 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:45:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 GTnNX7XHbofJ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C62BA1A1BAC for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:44:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6860; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455291899; x=1456501499; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lNxTa2p3SPdCkQPgXIRD7C2mKmd5j/+sOvRVtiUn/ys=; b=N3HThpERwwPDgACgx8xGtP0DYUzRJOVpeGDYK7eQpZEDPB0zYvN+URev 7PEHrbJsXCY6NOGy74m4n99ia4/7hQ0gLJ/RFHw5ZlFXIPv69dEUXc/Na Qd8XsRUu8nM3IgQHu2/tUGgq9d2Cb7MEjlq+E+h0hyf4T+vvHIYg4Lt0m k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D1AQCY/b1W/5NdJa1egzpSbYhbsTIBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFnFwqFbAKBNzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhEEBAQEDAQEBAWgDCwUHAgICAQgRAwECAS4?= =?us-ascii?q?bBgYLHQgCBA4FiAUDCggOvQINhF8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQERBASGD?= =?us-ascii?q?YFsgU97gjeBSxACARuDLYEPBZY3QAGFT4YSgXOOdoZ+hz8BHgEBQoNkaogqAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?B?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,436,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="70801097"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2016 15:44:55 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1CFitqo020845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:44:55 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:44:54 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com ([173.36.7.15]) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com ([173.36.7.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:44:54 -0600
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
Thread-Index: AQHRY5pkqH2wdtByFUSnbzl5TO/3Lp8okW5g
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:44:54 +0000
Message-ID: <1D04C925-93D7-4B6C-AAA9-F11F58CB4CA6@cisco.com>
References: <56B496CD.7020107@pi.nu> <96089BA7-51D0-4140-BE03-C5791937B48D@cisco.com> <40778BF9-D2BD-4050-9664-993852E2EC6B@cisco.com>, <CA24AB34-DFC8-498A-8CEA-A3FBB1ED97A3@gmail.com>, <DB856591-F412-4AFE-98A8-25BAEE8738BC@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB856591-F412-4AFE-98A8-25BAEE8738BC@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/OhLE7lQvRogpz5_tx69AmQpXWRw>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:45:03 -0000

I agree, Jeff and Phil. Alignment is key. 

Will need to do the due diligence to find other discrepancies. 

Cheers,
Rajiv Asati
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Services


> On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> I was going to bring exactly same point.
> 
> Over the last 6 months, in protocol/ services related modeling work we have put lot of effort trying to align with OpenConfig.
> Keeping this alignment with base MPLS model would be rather logical step.
> 
> Regards,
> Jeff
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> There is a consolidated MPLS model introduced by OpenConfig, the 02 version publisehd in October of last year.  
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-02
>> 
>> It has a base model which then has three different sub-models defined in the hierarchy covering types of LSPs: static, IGP-congruent/unconstrained (routing-dependent), and TE/constrained.  
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> 
>> Phil 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:43
>> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
>> 
>>> 
>>> My preference wasn’t quite clear in the previous email, so let me state it explicitly - (1), IMO, MPLS base should reside off the root, and for (2) it might be worth dividing the subsequent models as either non-routing or routing, given that MPLS control plane e.g. LDP would be routing dependent, whereas static LSP _could_ not be. 
>>> 
>>> For (2), a hierarchy something like his works out (where non-routing is nothing but MPLS base)
>>> 
>>>   MPLS Base
>>>       <non-routing>
>>>           Static LSP
>>>       <routing>
>>>           Static LSP
>>>           Dynamic LSP - LDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE, 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, it creates an interesting challenge for aligning the yang models and while keeping the hierarchy simple.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is it worth having a focused team figuring out MPLS base staying off the root, whereas routing-dependent MPLS control plane protocols e.g. LDP staying off routing?
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rajiv Asati
>>> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
>>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 8:58 AM
>>> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
>>> 
>>>> Loa,
>>>> 
>>>> I definitely agree (co-author hat off, and user hat on). Avoiding duplication and doing better organization would indeed be a good thing to do.   
>>>> 
>>>> 1) If MPLS base model (and subsequent models - LDP, TE etc.) augments the (IP) routing/routing-protocol, then it might not well apply to GMPLS. Is there an existing thought-process on this topic? 
>>>> 
>>>> Either ignore the above and have GMPLS argument mpls base model as is, or get MPLS base on an independent path (off of (IP) routing/routing-protocol) and work out the subsequent models.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) In terms of hierarchy, is the below envisioned?
>>>> 
>>>>   MPLS base => Static LSP and dynamic LSP
>>>>       MPLS static LSP => 
>>>>       MPLS dynamic LSP =>    
>>>>           LDP
>>>>           mLDP (MP)
>>>>           TE (RSVP-TE P2P)
>>>>           TE (RSVP-TE P2MP)                
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Rajiv  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
>>>> Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 7:34 AM
>>>> To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
>>>> Subject: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have had discussion among the MPLS, TEAS and CCAMP working group
>>>>> chairs - but as individual contributors, with chair half off. We agree
>>>>> that this discussion should be taken to the working group(s).
>>>>> 
>>>>> The YANG models for MPLS and GMPLS are quite rapidly taking shape. MPLS
>>>>> and GMPLS technologies have traditionally been very close, but their
>>>>> development has been a bit disjoint. For the YANG models we would like
>>>>> to minimize duplication of models/work and think the structure should
>>>>> have a common the top,  with specific technologies augmented below.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The structure in general as well as the YANG model at the common top
>>>>> needs to be the generic and aligned across the output of at least
>>>>> CCAMP, MPLS and TEAS working groups. There has been good work 
>>>>> progressing on TE specifics, e.g., see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te, but
>>>>> other areas remain. On the LDP side of the house draft-raza-mpls-
>>>>> ldp-mldp-yang is rapidly progressing towards working group adoption.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The models defined in draft-saad-mpls-static-yang could serve as the
>>>>> start on filling some of the remaining gaps; covering core xMPLS
>>>>> definitions and static LSPs.  There are a number of ways to make the
>>>>> structure intuitive and generic, and serve as a foundation for
>>>>> technology specific models.  -- This effort can be viewed as the same
>>>>> type of work that was done for TE, see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We think it would be a good idea  if the authors and the  WG considers
>>>>> how to structure xMPLS definitions and static LSPs models to best
>>>>> foster common use across the different related models being worked on 
>>>>> across  different WGs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are sending this mail in hopes of getting this discussion started.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Lou and Loa
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls