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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 03 April 2019 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 6693F1204C1; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 04:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=SwY2Ecyd; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=LLYYeKxU
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 oB8VI_q4wkZT; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 04:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A70801204C7; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 04:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6024; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554290946; x=1555500546; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=QyRfYJyT0tauQjdRAl3HVE16YyxUG9sc5D9SyGedA3g=; b=SwY2EcydHg+IahXtVwa7itdpjfV5mCP+glTALrbofH4D5fpd4t2D9Xcs OyefBQjlC3flyHCkExTcn7KO0mxYpWVMjwGM5BKHImYUun1E79IvLrjou 97ey3E+XWGubSTnfisa2dzNxeEfyawF/rAe5ePraGinD54YidKeJWWpwF 4=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AxvURRhVjzfUwKTcbBpduGxy7p9vV8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSANiJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?= =?us-ascii?q?dEwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/Zic3EexJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIAAAEmKRc/40NJK1lGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUgMBAQEBAQsBgT1QA2hUIAQLJwqEBINHA48ggjIllxG?= =?us-ascii?q?BLhSBEANUDgEBIwmEQAIXhS0iNQgNAQEDAQEJAQMCbRwMhUoBAQEDASMRDAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BNwELAgICAQgOAwQBAQECAiMDAgICFBwUAQgIAgQBDQWDIgGBXQMNCAEOojM?= =?us-ascii?q?CihRxgS+CeQEBBYE1AoNIGIIMAwUFgQYkAYsyF4F/gREnDBOCHi4+gQSBXQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgGBGhEBEgEfBxAhAoJQMYImijmCUYt+jFgJAod3gSaKURqCBYYRg1qIUYt?= =?us-ascii?q?HhheNSAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBTwE1ZXFwFTsqAYJBggoYg1aFFIU/coEojF2BHwG?= =?us-ascii?q?BHgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,304,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="253773221"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Apr 2019 11:29:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (xch-aln-020.cisco.com [173.36.7.30]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x33BT42M011941 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:29:04 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 06:29:04 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 07:29:03 -0400
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 07:29:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=QyRfYJyT0tauQjdRAl3HVE16YyxUG9sc5D9SyGedA3g=; b=LLYYeKxUsbgshGfM+a/TdsZ9gA35bMvUVyoDKtvzbm8KCitxVHv7piaRkBNUd4wRz0weKB03H2doMQuT/Y2O3o7dHnhcZvau/++RqhSPKVKOUs8eSNR+Th+x3Hu3wLiE5GOzaoYH/26xaaFQIbX72l+gIBbSst7VG2kNUQSyZ70=
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.112.11) by BN6PR1101MB2193.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.112.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.13; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:29:00 +0000
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9c05:e282:840b:51a1]) by BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9c05:e282:840b:51a1%8]) with mapi id 15.20.1750.017; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:29:00 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com" <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
CC: "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: AQHU6gjERYkTL9wT6kGTOa3NgxSQBKYqQkmAgAADzAD//8OngA==
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:29:00 +0000
Message-ID: <1D1E4132-7027-4B50-BAA7-65D20F468B8B@cisco.com>
References: <AM0PR03MB38286521B6CDFD36D173C6889D570@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20190403.123345.1599705387341112249.mbj@tail-f.com> <AM0PR03MB38281F7C5CF7C09C32066FB69D570@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20190403.130458.1547365482806443643.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190403.130458.1547365482806443643.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.82]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8df7c32c-173a-4a24-00f9-08d6b82791b3
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2193;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR1101MB2193:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR1101MB219306350A6DAE821023A3B9C2570@BN6PR1101MB2193.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0996D1900D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(396003)(346002)(136003)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(13464003)(51874003)(4326008)(186003)(68736007)(26005)(316002)(99286004)(2501003)(8936002)(97736004)(82746002)(6436002)(53546011)(6506007)(81156014)(81166006)(102836004)(54906003)(8676002)(76176011)(71190400001)(71200400001)(83716004)(110136005)(446003)(11346002)(2616005)(86362001)(486006)(476003)(256004)(105586002)(6116002)(14444005)(6246003)(66066001)(36756003)(93886005)(6486002)(478600001)(229853002)(305945005)(25786009)(7736002)(5660300002)(106356001)(3846002)(6512007)(6306002)(53936002)(14454004)(33656002)(2906002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2193; H:BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: o5MdRETPFDDhVYYagncHNGMD0npqpqakTSVRXUjMFyb9ncnF+Mqt6CR68FZYnNAobeRT4RCM9TUrjj7fwpA5a46pH3t1vYQkN0TfexGlSA0TP8/C/kGN789MNxnPyE2fiWwLo9F8KrgzkpuNiLfNoSmdUjEAcNeuoLyiy0eZsKPJ6BH7ub7tEDY3GMUTjwWpHhHi5nnrZPRQ2TjS2oI19zOQdQFUf8qVrwCOSr4ftEuKpwBY44lraYZkhAS980Nhj+VEKfnUQzzrtlMeu+i0Eon+as2zO5iiLIVTv+ufjGAd2v6TWSVuL7s1egMdjwZRndsirC+ZFnLvFQyoS7Trr62VLemlqzk8SZ2mthug00AqYpJTVvuLCpRhEYXieVdrVsYKV+uHIi1FWZFgFTa/o8xNQnVt0qdnAssJ1Tg8Ep4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C0FE7335FA2B48479E878B0AFC0265CE@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8df7c32c-173a-4a24-00f9-08d6b82791b3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2019 11:29:00.5224 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1101MB2193
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.30, xch-aln-020.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/E1Of3J7rYmMkqlVojI68TgBdScE>
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 11:29:16 -0000

Hi Sasha, Martin, 

Just one clarification below. 

On 4/3/19, 7:05 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com>; wrote:

    Hi,
    
    
    Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>; wrote:
    > 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”.
    
    Right (to be precise, the key is defined in the YANG models in section
    8 and 9).
    
    
    > 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.
    
    Correct.

The way multiple alternatives are supported is via the existing RFC 8349 next-hop-list list.
This is keyed with an index. What the augmentation provides is a way to specify a
preference for each next hop so that either ECMP or primary/backup uses case can
be supported. It is clear I need to expand the descriptive text for these augmentations
in the draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend. 

Thanks,
Acee
    
    
    > At the same time Appendix A in this draft does not define any keys
    > for the read-only RIB.
    > 
    > Can you explain this controversy?
    
    Not sure there's a controversy.  The static route list is how you
    configure static routes, and the RIB is the operational state of all
    routes (static and others).  Two different things.
    
    The MIB had a single table to show routes and write routes.  I don't
    think the persistency of the routes you wrote into the MIB was
    defined; perhaps these can be viewed as being "static".
    
    
    /martin
    
    
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 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.
    > ___________________________________________________________________________