Re: [mpls] [Teas] Generic LSP Yang

Dhruv, Xian and Lou:

Thank you for working on the genric LSP work.  After the TEAS WG, could the
I2RS WG get a summary of your discussion.  

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:00 AM
To: 'Lou Berger'; Dhruv Dhody; mpls@ietf.org
Cc: Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org; Zhangxian (Xian); TEAS WG
Subject: Re: [Teas] [mpls] Generic LSP Yang

Hi Lou,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: 05 March 2015 22:48
> To: Dhruv Dhody; mpls@ietf.org
> Cc: Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org; Zhangxian (Xian); TEAS WG
> Subject: Re: [Teas] [mpls] Generic LSP Yang
> 
> Hi Dhruv,
>     Good stuff!  There's already some related work going on based on 
> the TE LSP drafts/work started in MPLS and now in the TEAS WG.  -- 
> This was mentioned at the TEAS interim too, see
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/12/18/teas/minutes/minute
> s-
> interim-2014-teas-1
> 
> It looks like you don't completely overlap as you are also considering 
> non-TE LSPs.

[Dhruv]: Yes, our aim is to go one level up and see if we can have a generic
LSP yang model including TE and non-TE, as well any signaling protocol or
lack thereof (static, SR).  

> 
> So I guess a basic question to answer is what is the relationship of 
> the models of TE and non-TE LSPs. e.g,
> - a generic LSP model with parallel TE and non-TE sub models
> - a generic LSP model with protocol specific models
> - a generic LSP model with some mix of the above (which I think you 
> are
> proposing)
> - no generic LSP model, and separate  TE and non-TE sub models
> - etc

[Dhruv]: Our aim is to explore and see if we have attributes common to all
LSP irrespective of TE/non-TE; signaling protocol, Segment Routing and even
PCEP to warrant such a generic LSP model. 

A possible overall relationship with the model is in the draft - 
                 +---------------+
                 | Generic LSPDB |
                 |   ietf-lspdb  |
                 +-------^-------+
                         |
         ---------------------------------------------
        |                |                |           |
        |                |                |           |
   +----+----+   +-------+-------+   +----+----+   +--+--+
   | LDP-LSP |   |    BGP-LSP    |   |  TE-LSP |   | SR  |
   |         |   |               |   |         |   |     |
   +---------+   +---------------+   +----^----+   +--^--+
                                          |           |
                                           -----------
                                          |           |
                                          |           |
                                     +----+----+   +--+--+
                                     | RSVP-TE |   | SR- |
                                     |         |   | TE  |
                                     +----^----+   +--^--+
                                          |           |
                                          |           |
                                           -----------
                                          |
                                     +----+----+
                                     |  PCEP   |
                                     |         |
                                     +---------+

> 
> It's not clear to me how much value a generic model brings, but 
> details always help to clarify the situation.
> 
> My preference would be to have more details on the non-TE models (to 
> compare against the TE model) before deciding on the need for / value 
> of a generic LSP model.

[Dhruv]: Yes, I think that would surely help. 
IMHO the ease of augmentation and having a generic base model is one of the
key advantages of YANG, so we hope its a worthwhile exercise to explore the
need for such a generic model instead of separate TE and non-TE models. 

Regards,
Dhruv

> 
> Lou
> 
> On 3/5/2015 11:48 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Xian and I have created generic base yang model for LSPs. This model 
> > is expected to be augmented by seperate data model with specific 
> > signalling protocol and technology.
> >
> > See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-mpls-lspdb-yang-00
> >
> > Comments / Suggestions ?
> >
> > We need to work out the relationship with the rest of MPLS yang 
> > model which can be hashed out in Dallas.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dhruv / Xian
> >
> > Excuse the obvious nit with the LSP abbreviation expansion :P
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas