Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Wed, 03 April 2019 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039C81201DA; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 03:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.689
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.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 e7hUMjGlWiVx; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 03:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.bemta25.messagelabs.com (mail3.bemta25.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0FAB120091; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 03:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [46.226.52.197] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-4.bemta.az-b.eu-west-1.aws.symcld.net id 29/B9-19699-13094AC5; Wed, 03 Apr 2019 10:51:29 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1WTbUhTYRTHfXbv3a7l4jYtj8skl4EGW06iJmT Uh2hfgoreqIXd6XUbzavtTpoGZfRCzqYjjWy4rFxfli9oBqYJZkUWhm+VYGVIZmkte8XKt+7d tbIvh985/3PO/T8PzyUxxYxUSTIOO2NjaatKOg9fvaTBoda6fYbEriJMVxK4hOm6/F6prrBwW Kar6D5O6Lo+TGAbCH3pRB2h9/l+SvT1vS+Qvu5XJb4V30tYWGOW4wBh/vXkOpE9tcfRcvIyyk cvdjvRPBKnrmJQMOyUComCckvgxOgQn4TyyQCCwPc4gaVUCtRffxmsR1ArYOhWNS4MYFQxgsY ONxKEcGodeEe8Eici+aYUcDfHiv1J0FDWiguMU3FQ824syHJqP7h+fJKJH74ggZ93XZgghFIb YaDmS3AnohbD+KMqicAYFQn9QxVBBooC3+1OTORFMPJ6mhD7jfDqzRUk1mOhbKBcJvJS6Kkon K1vgY8lpwnBJ1DLoeHdfsEDUP0ICm5OScWeldDUODnLShh//Xl2jxUmi9sJkaPhWnUjEoe9Ui jomJSIN5cG7eVfcbEpBvyuwVnuwuDZd1o8DAv3zo/gbpTgmXM2zxzJE7ykhfDw4hDPJF9PgNq mVWJLLJQWDspEjodT5V7Z3PplJPMjndFmMZntmbTFqtYmJqq12iS1NjlZrU1K1NB5aqOGyVEf Zji7WquhD3MaLjczzZquYRl7PeIfXXr2A0cj6nSa2lAUKVEtkq856jMoFhiz0nPNNGdOteVYG a4NRZOkCuSoiNcW2hgT48iwWPmX+0cGMkwVIR918bKcy6YzOYtJlB6hTWTr1UEvRhbVDfOx4Z UQm4IxcOetF1PgbBbLKCPlAWGYEobNOezf1X/+ix60VBkuRyEhIYqwbMaWabH/r4+iSBKpwuU gOAyzsPa/DkZ5cxLenC6nQjBnp/9JynxkWLV58fxpvMTzoa93e979StvZ1DUtnqqY98d2zHQs ud3/Ncq5LwxvN5R255ouuIrOHs2wxc8cgT5rdNnTMbavJCauelnUmd1Nqm16/7mNxVMHvnX07 dSn+lNC87Y82x7S3JpQWXUjcuxbfHdtoPna+LBy17aDh8q3rttzca15/XPDYxXOmWntSszG0b 8BKBVkFhIEAAA=
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-285.messagelabs.com!1554288685!5735654!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.27.180.120]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: mailfrom-relay-check=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.31.5; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 31107 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2019 10:51:28 -0000
Received: from us-west-2c.mta.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO EUR04-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.27.180.120) by server-8.tower-285.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 3 Apr 2019 10:51:28 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QbnVFXhUbunRR9VNNDbpeOITUj8i/P6iiJ6QbiHELEg=; b=AjnoIR9GL73nD4K4dSewv1V4c6cYIIMB14yklg5OCGHiFJBup9dMFA7EO9g4/cJy6yELMKQ2EcQ4l9IDLLoNIQyzzJoknGNjr6xPllHTkCGDNH1ZT+JJFvve127c0KbT4PtU007k1BK1RWgHhkr1xhNgAvTlWhRzmQnh+yC33L0=
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (52.135.146.159) by AM0PR03MB5075.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (20.178.21.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.17; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 10:51:23 +0000
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7946:b505:a799:7a25]) by AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7946:b505:a799:7a25%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1750.017; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 10:51:23 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "acee@cisco.com" <acee@cisco.com>, "lhotka@nic.cz" <lhotka@nic.cz>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349
Thread-Index: AQHU6gi44Fd6CRdD2EKrt3tqeszW8aYqPwHQ
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 10:51:23 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR03MB38281F7C5CF7C09C32066FB69D570@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR03MB3828CD6E93236076142079109D560@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <399C7547-D8A6-4938-B5F2-9F6F7DFA795B@cisco.com> <AM0PR03MB38286521B6CDFD36D173C6889D570@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20190403.123345.1599705387341112249.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190403.123345.1599705387341112249.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f2e0ab09-81a7-432b-bf8c-08d6b822502e
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR03MB5075;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR03MB5075:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR03MB50759E76BA0CEFA99D0D76BF9D570@AM0PR03MB5075.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0996D1900D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(136003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(13464003)(51444003)(51874003)(189003)(199004)(99286004)(68736007)(71190400001)(54906003)(486006)(6436002)(6506007)(11346002)(186003)(7736002)(476003)(14454004)(446003)(105586002)(53546011)(102836004)(76176011)(229853002)(236005)(3846002)(86362001)(97736004)(6246003)(8676002)(106356001)(54896002)(81166006)(6306002)(55016002)(5660300002)(66066001)(256004)(81156014)(7696005)(53936002)(2906002)(26005)(9686003)(4326008)(8936002)(316002)(33656002)(25786009)(6116002)(72206003)(790700001)(478600001)(52536014)(606006)(6916009)(74316002)(93886005)(71200400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR03MB5075; H:AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 33lnie7frUp/Vfttj3FM7KncjNf2Xt1HkYL7XepTHHIJrkEt9TUbJye+32Ol/gEe1Sp5Hdq7eyQR0PJB/bVNb5HE7hAJwZWXFjmuXsT/N1rzVcTE0Xh1xwSv2LCpGHJ2W2PtwI067iiSRzvLHLcUTw+Z2Ozn2xEt/glotEGe9JUnKHOis7g1jWLVS7DNLvaZOorAolj4r9DEipBER/GwMMRrTcjrl3je6nuAPoeyIhjaH2UVE8uuHAv3RUZBK1vawDuLPmQgv5DUTEAtvsj3teTZH/Fm84mM/gMKlUHH9PYLyfJdVSVtsnariw0j27tIZ1eL4KDeLMWnH9h8cNv7sqd/m3Go76MzNBMiIWlEN9RSLVyoFs64LdSN9qP01ES5ATeMT79BA/qaI+HmGW2CNfnMcdBBCoGBO69fQxFC2PU=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM0PR03MB38281F7C5CF7C09C32066FB69D570AM0PR03MB3828eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f2e0ab09-81a7-432b-bf8c-08d6b822502e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2019 10:51:23.2453 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR03MB5075
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/eM-YHVwyTm3xpN2EEPkzW8dK4K0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 10:51:37 -0000

Martin,

Lots of thanks for an interesting input.

I have noticed that Appendix A in RFC 8349<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8349#appendix-A>  defines the key for static IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routes as “destination-prefix”.

draft-ietf-rtgwg- yang-rib-extend<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01> claims that it augments the model defined in 8349, therefore, to the best of my understanding, it uses the same key for station IPv4 and IPv6 unicast routes.

At the same time Appendix A in this draft does not define any keys for the read-only RIB.



Can you explain this controversy?



Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,

Sasha



Office: +972-39266302

Cell:      +972-549266302

Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>;
Cc: acee@cisco.com; lhotka@nic.cz; netmod@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349



Hi,



Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>> wrote:



[...]



> Meanwhile, could you please explain the rationale for changing the

> data model that has been defined in RFC 4292 (where both the

> destination prefix and the next hop have been parts of the index in

> the appropriate MIB table) ?

>

> The side effect of this change is that it is not backward-compatible

> with multiple existing RFC 4292-compliant RIB implementations:

>

> -          Retrieval of such a RIB using YANG requires a stateful mapper that

>            merges multiple RIB entries with the same destination prefix and

>            different “simple” NH into a single entry with the

>            next-hop-list



Note that the "route" list in the rib doesn't have any keys.  This means that you can report several entries with the same destination prefix.  So I think that this design is compatible with the MIB design.







/martin

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________