Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module

"Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad@cisco.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 E1F1E129C93; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:26:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 fRGEORKQ-PUu; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0206812944C; Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:26:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=23918; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485494785; x=1486704385; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ooLc/XUxJWT6WyAr6K1Xtm/HAY6OD9PH6KR9lW/tmnY=; b=CCPZ7ThKeTa9YiqvR4bRv7tu/U8iF6a6vEHs4YZWr4mTGadUtYNPPkUW ZAbnL6RTnwtkpUdNe7XF11+miv/Gt5mtplRLK2GA3rpBukqbnt2u9XwZX OViFFnTCvgk/sY7c3S09tyN0U8UBr0k0qSCF23WxFYYx7WT1trG+urZ/9 E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BIAQAX2YpY/5NdJa1UCRkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYM1AQEBAQEfYYEJB4NOigmSAIgHjSiCDB8LhXgCGoIXPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIRpAQEBBAEBIREzBAMLDgICAQgRAwECAQICIwMCAgIZBgYLFAEICAIEAQ0FiUYDGA6taYIlhzoNgywBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBQWBBoVAggWCaoJRgUEJBwoBHBeCby6CMQWIeoY1gUaKIzgBhmSHA4QPkHSKJIRChBUBHzh2VRU7EAGGKHUBhlGBIYENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,293,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="200800962"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jan 2017 05:26:24 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0R5QOCA003846 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 05:26:24 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:26:23 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:26:23 -0500
From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module
Thread-Index: AQHScs0qTJTiarlCFkWDmymLFHzAAKFGqPMAgAEHPgCAARRlAIADEZoA
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 05:26:23 +0000
Message-ID: <77C9B336-B65B-4DA1-BF27-17FE0E9491A8@cisco.com>
References: <495ABB60-04F9-4ADC-95B0-4081DDA05E0D@cisco.com> <D4ABEA82.9905B%acee@cisco.com> <98BD05F7-1D12-4C44-9D2E-3C87A08578AC@cisco.com> <044362de-9519-1baa-adf5-46c07ef9657e@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <044362de-9519-1baa-adf5-46c07ef9657e@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1e.0.170107
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.222.104]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <98FEC3B84D59AC4CB14A04E552676BB1@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/difaUJJLh6N7sLnq5Oj3KJ_2hcU>
Cc: RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 27 Jan 2017 05:26:29 -0000

Hi Loa,

On 2017-01-24, 8:34 PM, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

    Tarek,
    
    We've used push, swap and pop, since the beginning of MPLS,
    what is the reason to rename "push" to "impose" now?
[TS]: “impose” is quite common too, but I will raise this up in our next meeting and try to converge on “push” instead.
    
    What is the difference between 3 and 4 below?
[TS]: the intention was to distinguish a case where the top label is popped and replaced with a series of labels “pop-impose-and-forward” vs. special case of swap the top label “swap-and-forward”.

Regards,
Tarek
    
    /Loa
    
    
    On 2017-01-24 22:05, Tarek Saad (tsaad) wrote:
    > Hi Acee,
    >
    >
    >
    > The MPLS operations we’ve defined are:
    >
    > 1.      impose-and-forward
    >
    > 2.      pop-and-forward (e.g. PHP behavior)
    >
    > 3.      pop-impose-and-forward
    >
    > 4.      swap-and-forward
    >
    > 5.      pop-and-lookup
    >
    >
    >
    > Currently nhlfe-role is defining the path-role: primary, pure-backup,
    > primary-and-backup.
    >
    > This may equally apply to IP-RIBs (e.g. to cover IP-FRR) too, so we can
    > remove it from mpls augmentation if it can be present in
    > draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-00 (for example).
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Tarek
    >
    >
    >
    > *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
    > *Date: *Monday, January 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM
    > *To: *Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
    > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>,
    > "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>
    > *Subject: *Re: MPLS Base YANG Module
    >
    >
    >
    > Hi Tarek,
    >
    >
    >
    > Since these are augmentations to the IPv4 and IPv6 unicast RIBs, what
    > operation would be valid other than imposition (i.e., push)? Also, what
    > is the nhlfe-role? I see the role type defined in the expired base MPLS
    > model.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Acee
    >
    >
    >
    > *From: *"Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>
    > *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 9:27 PM
    > *To: *"mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org
    > <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
    > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
    > <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
    > <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>, Acee Lindem
    > <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
    > *Subject: *MPLS Base YANG Module
    >
    >
    >
    >     Hi WG/all,
    >
    >
    >
    >     As part of “draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang”, we are trying to model the
    >     MPLS FTN, NHLFE and ILM tables in YANG.
    >
    >     One proposal is to augment the IETF routing RIB model (rfc8022) for
    >     V4 and V6 RIBs so IP prefix route also carries the additional MPLS
    >     route local label and remote label bindings per next-hop.
    >
    >     Below highlights the augmentation of the RIB model for V4/V6. For
    >     MPLS cross-connects (non-IP mpls routes), we propose those to reside
    >     under a new address-family (MPLS) RIB, by defining a new identity as
    >     below.
    >
    >     Let us know if you have feedback/comments on this proposal.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >     *_Example IPv4 RIB augmention for MPLS (highlighted in yellow):_*
    >
    >
    >
    >        |  +--ro ribs
    >
    >        |     +--ro rib* [name]
    >
    >        |        +--ro name              string
    >
    >        |        +--ro address-family    identityref
    >
    >        |        +--ro default-rib?      boolean {multiple-ribs}?
    >
    >        |        +--ro routes
    >
    >        |        |  +--ro route*
    >
    >        |        |     +--ro route-preference?          route-preference
    >
    >        |        |     +--ro next-hop
    >
    >        |        |     |  +--ro (next-hop-options)
    >
    >        |        |     |     +--:(simple-next-hop)
    >
    >        |        |     |     |  +--ro outgoing-interface?
    >     if:interface-state-ref
    >
    >        |        |     |     |  +--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
    >     inet:ipv4-address
    >
    >        |        |     |     |  +--ro mpls:remote-labels*    mpls-label
    >
    >        |        |     |     |  +--ro mpls:operation?
    >     label-operation
    >
    >        |        |     |     +--:(special-next-hop)
    >
    >        |        |     |     |  +--ro special-next-hop?        enumeration
    >
    >        |        |     |     +--:(next-hop-list)
    >
    >        |        |     |        +--ro next-hop-list
    >
    >        |        |     |           +--ro next-hop*
    >
    >        |        |     |              +--ro outgoing-interface?
    >     if:interface-state-ref
    >
    >        |        |     |              +--ro v4ur:address?
    >     inet:ipv4-address
    >
    >        |        |     |              +--ro mpls:index?             string
    >
    >        |        |     |              +--ro mpls:backup-index?      string
    >
    >        |        |     |              +--ro mpls:role?
    >     nhlfe-role
    >
    >        |        |     |              +--ro mpls:outgoing-labels*
    >     mpls-label
    >
    >        |        |     |              +--ro mpls:operation?
    >     label-operation
    >
    >        |        |     +--ro source-protocol            identityref
    >
    >        |        |     +--ro active?                    empty
    >
    >        |        |     +--ro last-updated?              yang:date-and-time
    >
    >        |        |     +--ro v4ur:destination-prefix?   inet:ipv4-prefix
    >
    >        |        |     +--ro mpls:local-label?       mpls-label
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >     For MPLS cross-connects (non-IP mpls routes), we propose to reside
    >     under a new address-family (MPLS) RIB, by defining a new identity as
    >     below:
    >
    >
    >
    >       identity mpls {
    >
    >         base rt:address-family;
    >
    >         description
    >
    >           "This identity represents the MPLS address family.";
    >
    >       }
    >
    >
    >
    >     Regards,
    >
    >     Tarek
    >
    >
    >
    >     *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
    >     *Date: *Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:33 PM
    >     *To: *Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>,
    >     "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
    >     <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
    >     *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
    >     <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
    >     <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
    >     <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
    >     *Subject: *Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >     *From: *"Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>
    >     *Date: *Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:00 PM
    >     *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>,
    >     "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
    >     <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
    >     *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
    >     <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
    >     <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
    >     <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
    >     <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
    >     *Subject: *Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
    >
    >
    >
    >         Also for completeness, the model in
    >         “draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model” seems to present a “single”
    >         list of routes that contain all the different route-types
    >         (including MPLS routes).. It was mentioned that there are
    >         discussions between authors of “draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model”
    >         and draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg”. Has anything emerged that
    >         can help us steer the MPLS augmentation?
    >
    >
    >
    >     You should align with RFC 8022 where there is a separate model per
    >     address family.
    >
    >
    >
    >     Thanks,
    >
    >     Acee
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >            +--rw route-list* [route-index]
    >
    >               +--rw route-index                uint64
    >
    >               +--rw match
    >
    >               |  +--rw (route-type)?
    >
    >               |     +--:(ipv4)
    >
    >               |     |  +--rw ipv4
    >
    >               |     |     +--rw (ip-route-match-type)?
    >
    >               |     |        +--:(dest-ipv4-address)
    >
    >               |     |        |  ...
    >
    >               |     |        +--:(src-ipv4-address)
    >
    >               |     |        |  ...
    >
    >               |     |        +--:(dest-src-ipv4-address)
    >
    >               |     |           ...
    >
    >               |     +--:(ipv6)
    >
    >               |     |  +--rw ipv6
    >
    >               |     |     +--rw (ip-route-match-type)?
    >
    >               |     |        +--:(dest-ipv6-address)
    >
    >               |     |        |  ...
    >
    >               |     |        +--:(src-ipv6-address)
    >
    >               |     |        |  ...
    >
    >               |     |        +--:(dest-src-ipv6-address)
    >
    >               |     |           ...
    >
    >               |     +--:(mpls-route)
    >
    >               |     |  +--rw mpls-label              uint32
    >
    >               |     +--:(mac-route)
    >
    >               |     |  +--rw mac-address             uint32
    >
    >               |     +--:(interface-route)
    >
    >               |        +--rw interface-identifier if:interface-ref
    >
    >
    >
    >         Regards,
    >
    >         Tarek
    >
    >
    >
    >         *From: *Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>
    >         *Date: *Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM
    >         *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com
    >         <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
    >         <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
    >         *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
    >         <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
    >         <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
    >         <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
    >         *Subject: *Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
    >
    >
    >
    >         Thanks Acee for your review and comments. The authors met and we
    >         discussed your comments, see below for more..
    >
    >
    >
    >         >> I really only have one comment and that is that the “config false” version of interface-mpls need not be replicated in both the rt:routing and rt:routing-state trees.
    >
    >         We discussed this and have some concerns due to potential
    >         upcoming changes discussed at netmod group. Xufeng will follow
    >         up on this thread regarding this.
    >
    >
    >
    >         >> when some of the MPLS operational state will be added? The obvious examples are the ILM, FTN, and NHLFEs.
    >
    >         We’ve been discussing this, and we have some initial
    >         implementation of the tables under mpls @
    >         https://github.com/ietf-mpls-yang/te/blob/master/ietf-mpls.yang.tree..
    >         However, we’re also discussing the possibility of augmenting RIB
    >         for MPLS routes (see below) as you pointed..
    >
    >
    >
    >         >> One view is that the ILM, FTN, and NHLFEs could be provided via an augmentation to the RIB…
    >
    >         It is possible to have MPLS FTN table realized as an
    >         augmentation to existing IPv4 and IPv6 RIBs models defined in
    >         “draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg”. However, for pure MPLS-routes
    >         (keyed by label or aka the ILM table), this would require a new
    >         separate list of routes (new address family?) and a new “MPLS”
    >         RIB. In section 5.1 of “draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg”, the
    >         routes have mandatory “destination-prefix” attribute, and one
    >         way to have the MPLS route list is to redefine
    >         “destination-prefix” so it signifies the MPLS incoming label for
    >         MPLS routes. Any thoughts on this?
    >
    >
    >
    >         Regards,
    >
    >         Tarek and co-authors
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >         *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com
    >         <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
    >         *Date: *Friday, December 23, 2016 at 12:59 PM
    >         *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com
    >         <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
    >         <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
    >         *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
    >         <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
    >         *Subject: *Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
    >         *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
    >         *Resent-To: *<jescia.chenxia@huawei.com
    >         <mailto:jescia.chenxia@huawei.com>>, <bin_wen@cable.comcast.com
    >         <mailto:bin_wen@cable.comcast.com>>, <igor.bryskin@huawei.com
    >         <mailto:igor.bryskin@huawei.com>>, <vbeeram@juniper.net
    >         <mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net>>, <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
    >         <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>, <rgandhi@cisco.com
    >         <mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>>, <skraza@cisco.com
    >         <mailto:skraza@cisco.com>>, Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com
    >         <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>, <raqib@brocade.com
    >         <mailto:raqib@brocade.com>>
    >         *Resent-Date: *Friday, December 23, 2016 at 12:59 PM
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >         *From: *Rtg-dt-yang-arch <rtg-dt-yang-arch-bounces@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Acee
    >         Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
    >         *Date: *Friday, December 23, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    >         *To: *"draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
    >         <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
    >         *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
    >         <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
    >         <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
    >         *Subject: *[Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
    >
    >
    >
    >             Hi Authors,
    >
    >
    >
    >             Loa asked if I would do a review of the base MPLS YANG
    >             document. I really only have one comment and that is that
    >             the “config false” version of interface-mpls need not be
    >             replicated in both the rt:routing and rt:routing-state
    >             trees. For consistency, I’d recommend removing it from
    >             rt:routing.
    >
    >
    >
    >             I’d also ask where and when some of the MPLS operational
    >             state will be added? The obvious examples are the ILM, FTN,
    >             and NHLFEs.
    >
    >
    >
    >         One view is that the ILM, FTN, and NHLFEs could be provided via
    >         an augmentation to the RIB…
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >             Thanks,
    >
    >             Acee
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > mpls mailing list
    > mpls@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
    >
    
    -- 
    
    
    Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
    Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
    Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64