Re: [mpls] [Teas] [Rtg-yang-coord] Generic LSP Yang

Hi Loa,

The way I read Igor statement and agreed with it in a sense of "nothing in
common" was that it was referring to the control plane.

The subject of this thread is "Generic LSP YANG" and to me Yang model
describes control aspect of protocol or functionality not the choice of
forwarding header in the data plane.

So if you and others agree we should be all in sync and perhaps we could
consider as proposed before Generic Engineered Path model branching at the
lower layer between unicast and multicast.

However if you still think that Yang is about data plane and OAM then
perhaps we have a bigger issue here ....

Cheers,
R.

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> Himanshu, et.al.,
>
> I think there are two issues here and if sorting them out corrrectly
> we are very close.
>
> The first issue is similarities between different types of LSPs.
>
> Here I said that, at least for a MPLS PSN, there are similarities,
> e.g. the data plane is (nearly) the same. This was said in reaction
> to Igor's statement "IMHO TE-LSP, LDP-LSP and SPRING-LSP have nothing
> in common." I still don't think that Igor's statement is really correct.
> If he had said "IMHO there are not enough similarites between TE-LSP,
> LDP-LSP and SPRING-LSP to motivate a common model". I think that we be
> a much more accurate statement.
>
> And that is the other issue - Is it reasonable to model TE-LSP,
> LDP-LSP and SPRING-LSP in the same model? I don't not think it is,
> but that we need an overlap of people working with the different models.
>
> Hope this is clear enough.
>
> /Loa
>
>
> On 2015-03-07 23:19, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
>
>> /I agree with Robert and Igor, putting everything in the same bucket
>> because of common data plane & OAM does not justify./
>>
>> /We wouldn’t consider doing same for IP data plane../
>>
>> /I think we need to separate these models and as mentioned earlier,
>> there is already work going on in respective WGs./
>>
>> //
>>
>> /Thanks,/
>>
>> /himanshu/
>>
>> //
>>
>> //
>>
>> //
>>
>> *From:*mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Loa Andersson
>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 07, 2015 8:18 AM
>> *To:* teas@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, robert@raszuk.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [Rtg-yang-coord] [Teas] Generic LSP Yang
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>>  From one perspective I agree with you and Igor, however if you think
>> about MPLS LSPs, from a data plane perspective - and that is where OAM
>> operates, there almost no difference between a TE-LSP a LDP-LSP and a
>> SPRING MPLS LSP come very close.
>>
>> If you the other hand think of LSPs for other data planes the "nothing
>> in common" is an almost true statement. From that point of view I think
>> different models are where we will end up, but I also think that we need
>> "separation with moderation".
>>
>>   But nothing is so simple that we can capture it in one very simple
>> statement, we have hacking away on this for 30 years now, I'd advice
>> taking architecture and history into consideration, as well as viewing
>> the sky from a different perspective than from the bottom of a deep well.
>>
>> Let me also say that I'm very supportive of all the good work going on
>> in this area.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On 07 Mar 2015, at 19:47, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net
>> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     I would agree with Igor.
>>
>>     Other then name overlap those are completely different technologies
>>     and artificially putting them under "LSP" umbrella just does not
>>     bring any value, but only confuses things even more.
>>
>>     Q: What SPRING-LSP has anything in common with "label" when you use
>>     v6 header ?
>>
>>     If you want to search for some commonalities let's remove LDP-LSPs
>>     from this mix (as the is not relevant) and leave TE-LSP & SPRING +
>>     maybe also add BIER as well as change the name to Generic-EP
>>     (Engineered Paths).
>>
>>     I see no value of goruping based on the fact that data plane uses
>>     mpls labels, but rather I would see reasonable to provide models
>>     based on the transport path characteristics for the traffic it is to
>>     carry.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     r.
>>
>>     On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Igor Bryskin
>>     <IBryskin@advaoptical.com <mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Druv,
>>
>>     IMHO TE-LSP, LDP-LSP and SPRING-LSP have nothing in common. They
>>     should have totally independent models each being developed in
>>     respective WG.
>>
>>     Igor
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>>     Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org <mailto:Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> Teas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>