Re: [mpls] [Teas] Generic LSP Yang

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Fri, 06 March 2015 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B3E1ACDAE; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 04:00:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 i-hvOakU3gpE; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 04:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1AEB1ACDA3; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 04:00:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPY58768; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:00:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:00:41 +0000
Received: from BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.70]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:30:30 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] [mpls] Generic LSP Yang
Thread-Index: AQHQV2RAArbxfMQCJkWYNeXdfaQGXZ0NxckAgAFI2RA=
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:00:29 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8705236A@BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAB75xn5UZDW-aWaZpQYtu_22b8ts6mOC+tS9wqctWEmx1WY-iw@mail.gmail.com> <54F88FE0.9040206@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <54F88FE0.9040206@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.195.41.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/nHTesoAie6SUrlwkGjKXdR2LBFU>
Cc: "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Teas] Generic LSP Yang
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 06 Mar 2015 12:00:48 -0000

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/minutes-
> 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