Re: [netmod] Key collision between configured and ephemeral list entries

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 29 May 2019 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@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 A33EA12006D; Wed, 29 May 2019 06:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, 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=m5RmclSv; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=xm7bAlPO
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 6ZVpgtbCTld3; Wed, 29 May 2019 06:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 056BE120046; Wed, 29 May 2019 06:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7263; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1559135078; x=1560344678; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FfamdiIThrSedPxodGjYes6ABux0HGw05oAuWR7KEd0=; b=m5RmclSvDvmCREYhKCzEx8z3V59i5FM2AV03yrnIp516ltNkgEhhnSUz viNKJ3075BPeM58uq0RAf8erPOBUhyqQEg8KeHiQRbxP8qamvylrneHVC +l+mjupFA9Kh1UpnMsZdUfd3RqJFB6oBvpReIgQ1LWVw7XU3+Kbzn2H+W w=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AkqptzRUBtTpw6ypNuXeXhfFQGBzV8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA92J8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?= =?us-ascii?q?dE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtankgA8VGSFhj13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AGAAAQg+5c/4YNJK1bChkBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQEBgVEEAQEBAQELAYE9JAUnA2lVIAQLKAqHUAOEUooegld?= =?us-ascii?q?+iESNa4EuFIEQA1QJAQEBDAEBGAsKAgEBg3pGAoJ1IzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQR?= =?us-ascii?q?tHAyFSgEBAQEDAQEQLgEBJQcLAQQHBAIBCBEEAQEoByEGCxQJCAEBBAENBQg?= =?us-ascii?q?TB4MBgWoDHQECDJ4iAoE4iF+CIIJ5AQEFgTYCg08NC4IPAwaBNAGKNIEeF4F?= =?us-ascii?q?APyZrRoIXBy4+ghpHAQECAYErAQcEBwEJGAUlDIMEgiaLJggYBC0ChxlShzi?= =?us-ascii?q?NCj4JAoINhjiJAoQAgh+GaQWNRox1hwaBW40gAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFPOGZxcBU?= =?us-ascii?q?7gmyCDwsBF4ECAQKCSIUUhT9yAYEoikwPF4ELAYEgAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,527,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="280028585"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 May 2019 13:04:36 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4TD4atG026563 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 May 2019 13:04:36 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:04:35 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:04:35 -0500
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 29 May 2019 08:04:35 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NN4GVMAe53KfogyQ2+9CRw3zPyJPt72tR5uo4PKOLlg=; b=xm7bAlPObGTJMnQL3ZtAVlGpMhbg+Y7+tqqh9+tFlkZwNWHr3PQwUb05iwX5uQfQyZwGJHrZ/4ZSg1zSEdPS+r1b8H4BnEz86wp56nAUeiaTiHVXw7t8bNODTmwrCk5Bzc/YFrUPMSE/rXZbfbIdJmA/x60CuTfSLfYeX3iwxDA=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.227.28) by BYAPR11MB2837.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.228.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.18; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:04:33 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d837:c1dd:cdb1:bb78]) by BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d837:c1dd:cdb1:bb78%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.021; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:04:33 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
CC: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Key collision between configured and ephemeral list entries
Thread-Index: AdUUid+3lEIjrS8aR5K2w9jffR4mQABlMm1Q
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 13:04:33 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB26314CD2365C6AEC39E696EDB51F0@BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <91E3A1BD737FDF4FA14118387FF6766B2774D314@lhreml504-mbs> <017f01d515f9$d0c662c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <91E3A1BD737FDF4FA14118387FF6766B2774DF6C@lhreml504-mbs> <062401d5160d$a568ea80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <062401d5160d$a568ea80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
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=rwilton@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.220.56]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f05a5b8f-6d46-4192-5c99-08d6e4363217
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB2837;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2837:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 4
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB28377C18324E8F33F6D3851EB51F0@BYAPR11MB2837.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0052308DC6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(376002)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(81166006)(110136005)(8676002)(296002)(478600001)(81156014)(33656002)(486006)(53936002)(3846002)(6116002)(5024004)(14444005)(476003)(256004)(6436002)(7696005)(8936002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(229853002)(4326008)(99286004)(76176011)(6246003)(2906002)(305945005)(14454004)(316002)(25786009)(53546011)(64756008)(66476007)(966005)(73956011)(66446008)(66556008)(102836004)(7736002)(76116006)(66946007)(66066001)(446003)(52536014)(2501003)(68736007)(74316002)(9686003)(11346002)(55016002)(26005)(6306002)(86362001)(186003)(5660300002)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB2837; H:BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A: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: 0VINSvMg9hhedyUFKECXmUXGTdrKz1mvPwRt0w1+O1cwLIb/mduAQm0EE4Qj7U1SO0Oof0OjUrQsw9kHma/l78dSwTJ/pr9y34lg5/pH0gBk54rLkybWKYSme567tcd0FPiEs8+h4FSyYhwwFLG2SFCBA40nOv0UueQc2UZ9BJIdaKT7wrwVAhdKaf4EIUZgEl9I45O8Te4TkPT0/78skeDFmyfNz2AiHCemxQ0VS8VO26ArGiQqaJgV6CeSIM4IN76YIaC/Jc48645G8vYPNFAQ6LqSvMtiuyvSptUgyBcb6WlNFmJShRL4SuXHJBbvACZiv3cg8ZsUX6Co89E4Jz09h/b8YefnYNsFQppqch7lSljyuFMW0FeqEIh5nbFFxrQglI3VGMGNqFOsl+g/EbaJKMSQWwCI3fYS9V+ynYg=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f05a5b8f-6d46-4192-5c99-08d6e4363217
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 May 2019 13:04:33.7603 (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-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: rwilton@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2837
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/RQGz4jS8wtCWsjnYKNUHQDkmW0c>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Key collision between configured and ephemeral list entries
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, 29 May 2019 13:04:41 -0000

Are these ephemeral tunnels created and named by the device itself?

Possibly using a human readable prefix (or suffix) might be better than using a symbol.

E.g. perhaps a prefix of "sys-" as an abbreviation for system.

Thanks,
Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: 29 May 2019 12:04
To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>;; netmod@ietf.org
Cc: teas@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Teas] [netmod] Key collision between configured and ephemeral list entries


----- Original Message -----
From: "Italo Busi" <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 11:02 AM

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your reply

It seems to me that the text you have quoted is from:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-6.2

If I can understand correctly, especially for section 6.2.1, this constraints does not apply to name attributes whose syntax is defined as a string and used as key of a list, such as the tunnel list defined in the TE YANG model:

     |  +--rw tunnel* [name]
     |  |  +--ro operational-state?                  identityref
     |  |  +--rw name                                string

My understanding is that a tunnel list entry with a name starting with '#' can exist in a YANG DS

<tp>

Italo

Ah yes, my misunderstanding.  'string' type is a bit more flexible i.e.

   The string built-in type represents human-readable strings in YANG.
   Legal characters are the Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 [ISO.10646]
   characters, including tab, carriage return, and line feed but
   excluding the other C0 control characters, the surrogate blocks, and
   the noncharacters.

Plenty of scope there!


If this approach is taken, then I agree that hash is a good choice as it stands out, unlike, say, underscore which vanishes in the line of text.

Tom Petch

Thanks, Italo

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
Sent: mercoledì 29 maggio 2019 10:42
To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>;; netmod@ietf.org
Cc: teas@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Key collision between configured and ephemeral list entries

<inline>

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Italo Busi" <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>;
To: <netmod@ietf.org>;
Cc: <teas@ietf.org>;
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 2:16 PM
Subject: [netmod] Key collision between configured and ephemeral list entries


On Friday within the TEAS WG, we have discussed an issue which seems generic and therefore agreed to ask for guidelines to the Netmod WG

In the TE YANG model we have defined a tunnel list with a name attribute used as a key:

     |  +--rw tunnel* [name]
     |  |  +--ro operational-state?                  identityref
     |  |  +--rw name                                string

See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-21

The issue we are facing is how to avoid name collision between configured and ephemeral tunnels. In other words, the issue we are trying to address is how to avoid the client to assign to a configured tunnel a name which have been already assigned by the server to another ephemeral tunnel and vice-versa, in particular considering NMDA rules

We believe that the issue is generic and apply to any configured and ephemeral list entries

Has this issue been already discussed/resolved in Netmod WG?

If not, what is the Netmod WG opinion/suggestion? We are currently considering the following option:

   Use a special character for ephemeral names - e.g. such names always are prepended by special character "#"
   Make the special character changeable by configuration - the default can be "#" and user can change if they desire..

<tp>

If this is to conform with YANG 1.1, RFC7950, then the constraint is

   Identifiers are used to identify different kinds of YANG items by
   name.  Each identifier starts with an uppercase or lowercase ASCII
   letter or an underscore character, followed by zero or more ASCII
   letters, digits, underscore characters, hyphens, and dots.


No # (hash) anywhere so I suspect that a lot of tooling will fail in an unpredictable way if it encounters an illegal character in an identifier.

Tom Petch


Thanks, Italo

Italo Busi
Principal Optical Transport Network Research Engineer Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Tel : +39 345 4721946
Email : italo.busi@huawei.com
[cid:image002.png@01D5149F.354EF420]

This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!

From: Tarek Saad [mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com]
Sent: venerdì 24 maggio 2019 23:13
To: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>;; Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi@cisco.com>;; Xufeng <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>;; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vbeeram@juniper.net>;; Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>;
Cc: teas@ietf.org
Subject: Discussion on modelling container TE tunnels in YANG

The team on "to" list met to discuss this subject topic. Notes from today's discussion (please add if I missed):

Name collision between configured and ephemeral tunnels:
  This is a generic problem in NMDA.
  How to handle collisions between configured and ephemeral (or
auto-created) objects of a list, if the list uses the object (string
based) name as the key?
  Both configured and ephemeral can have the same object name but they are different objects - how to avoid such collision.
 Proposed solution:
   Option 1:
   Use a special character for ephemeral names - e.g. such names always are prepended by special character "#"
   Make the special character changeable by configuration - the default can be "#" and user can change if they desire..
  Others?
AI (Italo): to send email to netmod group.

Container TE tunnels discussion:
-          Container tunnels are grouping of tunnels between same 2
endpoints to share incoming traffic towards the egress
-          Member tunnels of a container tunnel can be
auto-created/deleted on-demand and controlled by thresholds specified under the container
-          Some attributes may apply on the container tunnel and
inherited down to member tunnels of the container
-          Q: Should model allow member tunnel to override inherited
attributes from container tunnel?
-          Q: Should all auto-created member tunnels of a container have
the same prefix/suffix - i..e prefix/suffix can be configurable

Regards,
Tarek






------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas