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: A0D1AQCY/b1W/5NdJa1egzpSbYhbsTIBDYFnFwqFbAKBNzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhEEBAQEDAQEBAWgDCwUHAgICAQgRAwECAS4bBgYLHQgCBA4FiAUDCggOvQINhF8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQERBASGDYFsgU97gjeBSxACARuDLYEPBZY3QAGFT4YSgXOOdoZ+hz8BHgEBQoNkaogqAQEB
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
- [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Phil Bedard
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang mo… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)