Re: [netmod] Inventory YANG model (entity-MIB)

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thanks a lot.

-Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 5:32 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
> Cc: Benoit Claise; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; NETMOD Working Group
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Inventory YANG model (entity-MIB)
> 
> I'll add you to the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> > On Mar 8, 2015, at 11:40 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Happy to know that Netmod has interests on the inventory Yang model, and
> we would be glad to move draft-dong-i2rs-network-inventory-00 to Netmod if
> it is decided by the ADs and chairs.
> >
> > Could we ask for a time slot of 10 mins to present the current inventory model
> draft and discuss the next-steps? Thanks.
> >
> > Contributions and discussions on this model are welcome.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: netmod [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Thomas D.
> >> Nadeau
> >> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 8:21 PM
> >> To: Benoit Claise
> >> Cc: [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]; NETMOD Working Group
> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] Inventory YANG model (entity-MIB)
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On Mar 6, 2015:7:05 AM, at 7:05 AM, Benoit Claise
> >>>> <[e-mail]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jürgen,
> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:48:02AM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The I2RS interim meeting yesterday focused on topology.
> >>>>> Let me cut/paste a high level slide, with pointers to the relevant drafts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If interested, the meeting minutes are at
> >>>>> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/i2rs-interim-march-5-2015-v-
> >>>>> bl
> >>>>> uesheets
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Part of the inventory draft
> >>>>> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-i2rs-network-inventory
> >>>>> /) discussion, the overlap with the ENTITY-MIB RFC 6933 was
> >>>>> discussed (and RFC 7223 btw).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The message was that I2RS should not re-invent something similar
> >>>>> to the ENTITY-MIB So, are you aware of any initiatives to
> >>>>> "YANGify" the ENTITY-MIB?
> >>>>> It's true that there is a way to translate MIB into YANG with RFC 6643.
> >>>>> This could be a good start. However, I wonder if a hand-written
> >>>>> YANG model that closely follows the entPhysical would not be more
> beneficial.
> >>>>> Is this something we should take on board in NETMOD?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note: As commented by the I2RS people, indexing is appropriate in
> >>>>> the MIB module for its original purpose, but may not be for the topology.
> >>>>> I'm not sure we want to change the indexing just for the topology,
> >>>>> but the integration within the topology draft should be thought of.
> >>>> My first question is (perhaps not surprising) whether inventory
> >>>> falls into the I2RS charter, I2RS = interface to the routing system.
> >>> No it doesn't.
> >>> As mentioned during the interim yesterday by the I2RS people, they
> >>> would be
> >> happy if the inventory work be done somewhere else. Hence this email
> >> thread. I believe this work should be picked up by NETMOD .
> >>
> >>    I agree with Juergen's assessment; this seems like it should be
> >> done in NETMOD. We should figure out a way to leverage the entity MIB
> >> but given that module's age, we should also be open to updates
> >> because the world has changed since that was published.
> >>
> >>    So there is a wider question as Juergen asked at the end of the thread:
> >> should here be a concentrated effort to do topology/inventory that
> >> applies to all areas ?  I'd say yes.  While not a super complicated,
> >> long effort, this is something that needs to be done in a way that it
> >> applies to more than just the use cases of a specific routing use
> >> case.  With that in mind, its important to get the network operators
> >> involved on this effort so that this is not done in a vendor vacuum.
> >>
> >>    Speaking as an individual, I will point out that the topology
> >> model that I've worked on with Jan et al you can see the approach taken on
> network topology.
> >> This has been implemented in ODL, which means its being tried in
> >> production environments right now and works quite well:
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-medved-i2rs-topology-im-01.txt
> >>
> >>    Another data point here. Shane and others have been been clear
> >> that an inventory is needed and how it is a bit different than
> >> network topology as specified above, but that it should be consistent in
> certain places too:
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-amante-i2rs-topology-use-cases
> >> /
> >>
> >>    --Tom
> >>
> >>
> >>> That
> >>>> said, RFC 6643 gives you a read-only translation. There are not
> >>>> many read-write objects in the ENTITY-MIB so perhaps this is good
> >>>> enough for now. I guess it would help what I2RS needs to know in
> >>>> order to make the interface to the routing system work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, if YANG models overlapping the ENTITY-MIB are done, they
> >>>> they should at least allow implementation of both in a predictable manner.
> >>>> Looking at draft-dong-i2rs-network-inventory-00, it seems the whole
> >>>> interface list is already covered by RFC 7223 and interfaces should
> >>>> be references not repeated (this is what the ENTITY-MIB does).
> >>> Yes, I made that point.
> >>> Similarly, this draft should reference a inventory YANG model
> >>>
> >>>> So what is
> >>>> left is essentially a (not yet hierarchy) of 'cards' that seem to
> >>>> more or less match the entPhysicalTable of the ENTITY-MIB (but then
> >>>> the ENTITY-MIB has a more flexible model that distinguishes between
> >>>> different kind of hardware components).
> >>>> I also notice that the model
> >>>> in draft-dong-i2rs-network-inventory-00 is config true - so I am
> >>>> not sure how this is supposed to use.
> >>>> Is the idea that this model is an
> >>>> interface to an inventory database where I configure what I have
> >>>> instead of a model sitting on a device where I can query what the
> >>>> device actually has?
> >>>>
> >>>> /js
> >>> Regards, Benoit
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: I personally would have preferred if generic topology and perhaps
> >>>>    inventory would have split off into a short-lived targeted WG
> >>>>    instead of doing all of this in I2RS but it seems leadership has
> >>>>    already decided that I2RS is the home for all of this.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> netmod mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >