[netmod] Add network instance name on interface, IPv4, IPv6

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 05 August 2019 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 0A47B12022E; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KPyQzGYYndDm; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 7DFAF1201EC; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4A2B965ED94B0B25F1F2; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:11:02 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.50) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:10:55 +0100
Received: from DGGEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.18]) by dggeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.50]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:05:50 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model.all@ietf.org>
CC: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "Wangleilei (DOPRA SSP)" <wangleilei@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: Add network instance name on interface, IPv4, IPv6
Thread-Index: AdVLk710rBBNwCAdSAaU2eImV7sW6Q==
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:05:50 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA9283A10@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.31.203]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA9283A10dggeml511mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/A_cOKK2qPhIbxE3uvFjuLC06En0>
Subject: [netmod] Add network instance name on interface, IPv4, IPv6
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: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:11:07 -0000

Hi, authors:

In RFC8529, the bind-network-instance-name leaf provides the association between an interface and its associated NI.

However it is not clear to me why the same association between Ipv4/Ipv6 type and its association NI

Should be provided as well? See model structure snippet defined in RFC8529 as follows:
"
   augment /if:interfaces/if:interface:
     +--rw bind-ni-name?   -> /network-instances/network-instance/name
   augment /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4:
     +--rw bind-ni-name?   -> /network-instances/network-instance/name
   augment /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6:
     +--rw bind-ni-name?   -> /network-instances/network-instance/name
"

So the question is

Can we add different NI name for IPv4/IPv6 type? Isn't IPv4 type and IPv6 type and interface pointing to the same NI name?

Why IPv4 type and IPv6 type in IP data model can not inherit the same NI name from the interface model since IP Data model is an extension to Interface Data Model?
Suppose we configure interface and associated IP addresses and assign this interface to a NI,
Which configuration snippet is correct:
Option A:
{
"name": "eth1",
"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
"ietf-ip:ipv4": {
"address": [
{
"ip": "192.0.2.11",
"prefix-length": 24
}
]
"ietf-network-instance:bind-network-instance-name": "vrf-red"
},
"ietf-ip:ipv6": {
"address": [
{
"ip": "2001:db8:0:2::11",
"prefix-length": 64
}
]
"ietf-network-instance:bind-network-instance-name": "vrf-red"
},
"ietf-network-instance:bind-network-instance-name": "vrf-red"
},
Option B:
{
"name": "eth1",
"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
"ietf-ip:ipv4": {
"address": [
{
"ip": "192.0.2.11",
"prefix-length": 24
}
]
},
"ietf-ip:ipv6": {
"address": [
{
"ip": "2001:db8:0:2::11",
"prefix-length": 64
}
]
},
"ietf-network-instance:bind-network-instance-name": "vrf-red"
},

-Qin