Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <> Fri, 05 February 2016 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBBD1B38C6 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 05:58:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vk_G1hZ8Xb9D for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 05:58:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81ABF1B3841 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 05:58:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4258; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454680686; x=1455890286; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kGD8AQXPSLLTNnqEhdIwGYtStxvb4CcS72wjiAivI90=; b=avspLxp8826Qds2QLRwGwTjR3TM0m2vxAUADUALHO3gv7c5aohfOixxK WU8M29luwUVrUuN4N2xd/HWUn/6o7VzHOUf32+ORpouYeBpRVNa2ESdU7 9GbMX1Vk6eeFi5hQJboLz9piOet/1YaYDVS+3ngEoD0BMVEph8+0c+ukt I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,400,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="70585502"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Feb 2016 13:58:05 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u15Dw5Kv000950 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 13:58:05 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 07:58:04 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 07:58:04 -0600
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <>
To: Loa Andersson <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
Thread-Index: AQHRYBGjmAajuar7MEGEhMtXtilAlZ8dixwA
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:58:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:58:09 -0000


I definitely agree (co-author hat off, and user hat on). Avoiding duplication and doing better organization would indeed be a good thing to do.   

1) If MPLS base model (and subsequent models - LDP, TE etc.) augments the (IP) routing/routing-protocol, then it might not well apply to GMPLS. Is there an existing thought-process on this topic? 

Either ignore the above and have GMPLS argument mpls base model, or get MPLS base on an independent path (off of (IP) routing/routing-protocol).

2) In terms of hierarchy, is the below envisioned?

	MPLS base => Static LSP and dynamic LSP
		MPLS static LSP => 
		MPLS dynamic LSP => 	
			mLDP (MP)
			TE (RSVP-TE P2MP)			    


-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <> on behalf of Loa Andersson <>
Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 7:34 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS

>We have had discussion among the MPLS, TEAS and CCAMP working group
>chairs - but as individual contributors, with chair half off. We agree
>that this discussion should be taken to the working group(s).
>The YANG models for MPLS and GMPLS are quite rapidly taking shape. MPLS
>and GMPLS technologies have traditionally been very close, but their
>development has been a bit disjoint. For the YANG models we would like
>to minimize duplication of models/work and think the structure should
>have a common the top,  with specific technologies augmented below.
>The structure in general as well as the YANG model at the common top
>needs to be the generic and aligned across the output of at least
>CCAMP, MPLS and TEAS working groups. There has been good work 
>progressing on TE specifics, e.g., see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te, but
>other areas remain. On the LDP side of the house draft-raza-mpls-
>ldp-mldp-yang is rapidly progressing towards working group adoption.
>The models defined in draft-saad-mpls-static-yang could serve as the
>start on filling some of the remaining gaps; covering core xMPLS
>definitions and static LSPs.  There are a number of ways to make the
>structure intuitive and generic, and serve as a foundation for
>technology specific models.  -- This effort can be viewed as the same
>type of work that was done for TE, see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te.
>We think it would be a good idea  if the authors and the  WG considers
>how to structure xMPLS definitions and static LSPs models to best
>foster common use across the different related models being worked on 
>across  different WGs.
>We are sending this mail in hopes of getting this discussion started.
>Thank you,
>Lou and Loa
>Loa Andersson                        email:
>Senior MPLS Expert                
>Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>mpls mailing list