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
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
Precedence: list

I agree, Jeff and Phil. Alignment is key.=20

Will need to do the due diligence to find other discrepancies.=20

Cheers,
Rajiv Asati
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Services


> On Feb 9, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> wr=
ote:
>=20
> I was going to bring exactly same point.
>=20
> Over the last 6 months, in protocol/ services related modeling work we ha=
ve put lot of effort trying to align with OpenConfig.
> Keeping this alignment with base MPLS model would be rather logical step.
>=20
> Regards,
> Jeff
>=20
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> There is a consolidated MPLS model introduced by OpenConfig, the 02 vers=
ion publisehd in October of last year. =20
>>=20
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-02
>>=20
>> 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. =20
>>=20
>> Thanks,=20
>>=20
>> Phil=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----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 t=
o MPLS
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> My preference wasn=92t quite clear in the previous email, so let me sta=
te 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 depende=
nt, whereas static LSP _could_ not be.=20
>>>=20
>>> For (2), a hierarchy something like his works out (where non-routing is=
 nothing but MPLS base)
>>>=20
>>>   MPLS Base
>>>       <non-routing>
>>>           Static LSP
>>>       <routing>
>>>           Static LSP
>>>           Dynamic LSP - LDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE,=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> However, it creates an interesting challenge for aligning the yang mode=
ls and while keeping the hierarchy simple.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Is it worth having a focused team figuring out MPLS base staying off th=
e root, whereas routing-dependent MPLS control plane protocols e.g. LDP sta=
ying off routing?
>>>=20
>>> --=20
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rajiv Asati
>>> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> -----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
>>>=20
>>>> Loa,
>>>>=20
>>>> I definitely agree (co-author hat off, and user hat on). Avoiding dupl=
ication and doing better organization would indeed be a good thing to do.  =
=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 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. I=
s there an existing thought-process on this topic?=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 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-proto=
col) and work out the subsequent models.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 2) In terms of hierarchy, is the below envisioned?
>>>>=20
>>>>   MPLS base =3D> Static LSP and dynamic LSP
>>>>       MPLS static LSP =3D>=20
>>>>       MPLS dynamic LSP =3D>   =20
>>>>           LDP
>>>>           mLDP (MP)
>>>>           TE (RSVP-TE P2P)
>>>>           TE (RSVP-TE P2MP)               =20
>>>>=20
>>>> --=20
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Rajiv =20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> -----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
>>>>=20
>>>>> All,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> We have had discussion among the MPLS, TEAS and CCAMP working group
>>>>> chairs - but as individual contributors, with chair half off. We agre=
e
>>>>> that this discussion should be taken to the working group(s).
>>>>>=20
>>>>> The YANG models for MPLS and GMPLS are quite rapidly taking shape. MP=
LS
>>>>> and GMPLS technologies have traditionally been very close, but their
>>>>> development has been a bit disjoint. For the YANG models we would lik=
e
>>>>> to minimize duplication of models/work and think the structure should
>>>>> have a common the top,  with specific technologies augmented below.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> We think it would be a good idea  if the authors and the  WG consider=
s
>>>>> how to structure xMPLS definitions and static LSPs models to best
>>>>> foster common use across the different related models being worked on=
=20
>>>>> across  different WGs.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> We are sending this mail in hopes of getting this discussion started.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Lou and Loa
>>>>> --=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>>>>=20
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls