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

tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 13 November 2018 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B97130DCA; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:19:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.196
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RATWARE_MS_HASH=2.148, RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME=2.95, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com
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 6zQspZlwNEjd; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20138.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A56D512D4E8; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:19:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-btconnect-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=U6SY8QGFaVGKp99f/A3ri+ojh3ZoUcOi7mbt7XaOF0U=; b=R9M9LfTMQw7XzJ1zTva9jMLJRaJaeveq0swe+LH01MMvAiVGvl3as3rDYQbbDjBDuwwSCd+4lwAEfbaOwBek/V0M/4B5QSdYXqfAIskhkonev9Fv/oGYVVWCdNLt8N3ejztj9cotah4SCEyjI8LtncnKAcUj0uoNNRDV1Ep36WQ=
Received: from VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.177.202.206) by VI1PR07MB3517.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.175.244.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1339.12; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:19:34 +0000
Received: from VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::929:bd11:beb6:b887]) by VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::929:bd11:beb6:b887%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1339.021; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:19:34 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang
Thread-Index: AQHUe02wlCMgQUKxOkmdNrRJZT0IYw==
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:19:34 +0000
Message-ID: <006d01d47b74$cde44920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <151871655164.7468.17697751302068907872@ietfa.amsl.com> <03b001d3a714$5e08dce0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <A7C87BD7-A6E5-474F-9D19-F3B9A6F83DA4@cisco.com> <001001d4767d$62fb1a40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <00c901d478f6$25a75c00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <060801d47b4d$730cbd60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <8482D196-9EE8-4469-94FA-0DEF1B595252@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: LO2P265CA0454.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:e::34) To VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:9b::14)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [86.128.101.213]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR07MB3517; 6:HYohT3dQA1KpY4ZmxLOB4CbgGWYDf2lX1WDAJvQB+JVZjOcbahwlLbYqHMKPyo/hDkKjID4TrX5p8/vYfdLv+j+BZbbHYywALg3lRgJKotekYd1KAm5HnNh94xvbVTMJNcfR85Pn49YYnDNFhMUpPNlbWTszVPUkef7s4v9ObeSZk8S4XxyeE+Qmwx9m5n0P5tacHvFE7PCP5hlnMG2fmF8fBIlak/cNCtV9aknAXWRn4htrY1r3Bll9qL+UHepnxFn67KOxToQe3WShDp6rMUEVyd/Y87HO0BXNc4fLefBtmiN4YaHL0rN3v3dW+bqHdCxK3NeyWfr8QmrGZy9ABsTPIddE4dgTxMWGYLKrWYC0O/sEH618sQ+S2p3kGWMtFqw6CmqFklKUIJs0YRJZDRgFn1qPi8X64FJjKfuiG/blyz2bDv8ZUBkFo+RwnJyq3S+cu8/zqajRstpPjN5gDQ==; 5:vJGZEhwhA0PDPsZTqYc7jyl6Vd39x7Nn4m3LyLfPSOATr0R/Z3DDdVpknh190u3kFbdJSydN0InQuDCSj9lVa1Jja9f+9cxQsTa0dg8dPHUiQ/YjqBz7gpjbiG3rIovHuEaO/dvScW/CUzeAB5ZOZQB2iRO4n61TZZmV0rsFLmU=; 7:aOn7Sna7M117ql+abXfqzJ2oD6I9K3URUj+MNHfPyVXXS46Lx1C/Vdm5ppQKAxqDIh8NOPPkZEfp/CDLPfgQzdqin5zystAv+sAkRXb5mleHKDVZyBpMDH4TcUALnncXrhBe+zqrdY8Fwki1ghU0gw==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 734f0c98-35e5-417b-599d-08d6498c2e57
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390060)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3517;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB3517:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR07MB35172BC8F84AA2B8BDF5E751A0C20@VI1PR07MB3517.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231406)(944501410)(52105112)(10201501046)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:VI1PR07MB3517; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR07MB3517;
x-forefront-prvs: 085551F5A8
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(346002)(396003)(376002)(199004)(54094003)(189003)(37854004)(13464003)(8676002)(81156014)(7736002)(2900100001)(6506007)(8936002)(14454004)(97736004)(81166006)(386003)(3846002)(6436002)(5660300001)(99286004)(6116002)(52116002)(76176011)(93886005)(110136005)(305945005)(33896004)(66066001)(106356001)(105586002)(1556002)(14496001)(4326008)(86362001)(6512007)(84392002)(68736007)(2906002)(6486002)(9686003)(186003)(446003)(476003)(44736005)(256004)(478600001)(6246003)(316002)(102836004)(486006)(86152003)(53936002)(25786009)(71190400001)(71200400001)(26005)(229853002)(53546011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB3517; H:VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: dojw/1kllnV3raobFV7707RvrZNgxDwx0p/leDF+Z7vD1Xzfeb4FGPoqxsuRa3ByoD9kNlVzdKZ4OfcIR7JfvA2nuJZxHXTRzcGTC/9Y7/hA2WpdXb6li152IrzUkg+xKSoGfuqt68AiASdvimjaFfNXAg32otT5RXCvv9SymX5Edw07TO5edTMxQN0Bt5++gzrTAWO1bj+SOqcopJ8MH8dKgiUGkaV6dl7aSUYnktLUKlwcQJDDU+BXaouk/hcvLKC9BuUM8x+4cb7FH77NdclD1qF0qPl7gXk3vjy/CmXpG4Htm9l4toOKe/RPYXBzFQ2OzNqQh3RpyTJ6rdAbQZQwgpQd/5dSuicpRtRx9HU=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F4EE1ECA0D9DCB47AD6D9ACC749BAC8D@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 734f0c98-35e5-417b-599d-08d6498c2e57
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Nov 2018 17:19:34.7948 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB3517
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/caplQSiZ6q6ejoS9025a9ttRv4M>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Structure of draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:19:41 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 4:31 PM

> 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)

Tarek

Yes, so BGP is out of line, but that is a problem for another WG.

The MPLS quirks are IMHO twofold.

Why define an address family?  I always think of AFI/SAFI when someone
says address family and I do not see MPLS figuring in that context.

Second, what are MPLS and MPLStunnel doing in the Interface Table?  Ok,
they are a carry over from the MIB but do they have any role here?

I am fishing for some 'when' (or if-feature) statements alongside the
'augment'
to make the augment conditional (although perhaps not as many as TEAS
created:-).  Instinctively I feel there should be something as e.g. OSPF
has although accepting your point about MPLS not being a protocol; but
then mpls-ldp is a protocol but has no conditionals that I can see.

At a slight tangent, I see in OSPF and others references such as
       container mpls {
         description "OSPF MPLS config state.";
         container te-rid {
           if-feature te-rid;
ie conditional but not on MPLS per se.

Tom Petch

> Regards,
> Tarek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 7:37 AM
> To: Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com>om>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
> Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>
> 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
>
>
>
>