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
- [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Loa Andersson