Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang

["Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <[e-mail]>]

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)

Regards,
Tarek

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 7:37 AM
To: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>, mpls <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
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