Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-14

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

You can use the same ACL definition to attach to different points in the system, provided they do not overlap. Otherwise, you are just wasting CAM entries. Global and interface attachment points will overlap with each other, because global means ‘any’ interface.

> On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> We need to be able to attach any one ACL to a whole range of different places. Just speaking from the Cisco platform perspective, I may attach an ACL to:
> 
> Interfaces
> NAT configuration
> Class maps for QoS policy
> Class maps for FW policy
> …etc…
> 
> Not sure if we have any global attachment points today, but if we did, I’d want to be able to use the same ACL definition anywhere I need it, not in just one on N places.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Einar
> 
>> On 13 Dec 2017, at 20:29, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> My understanding is that you would attach an ACL either to an interface or globally. Not both.
>> 
>>> On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I’m happy to have a way to attach an ACL globally, but that’s orthogonal to attaching to an interface, isn’t it? Attaching ACLs directly to an interface doesn’t preclude global attachment in any way as far as I can see…or have I missed something? I’m not sure I understand why choices are an issue. The current proposal has this container:
>>> 
>>> module: ietf-access-control-list
>>>     +--rw access-lists
>>>        +--rw attachment-points
>>>           +--rw interface* [interface-id] {interface-attachment}?
>>>              +--rw interface-id    if:interface-ref
>>>              +--rw ingress
>>>              |  +--rw acl-sets
>>>              |     +--rw acl-set* [name]
>>>              |        +--rw name    -> ../../../../../../acl/name
>>>              |        +--rw type?   -> ../../../../../../acl/type
>>>              |        +--ro ace* [name] {interface-stats or interface-acl-aggregate}?
>>>              |           +--ro name               -> ../../../../../../../acl/aces/ace/name
>>>              |           +--ro matched-packets?   yang:counter64
>>>              |           +--ro matched-octets?    yang:counter64
>>>              +--rw egress
>>>                 +--rw acl-sets
>>>                    +--rw acl-set* [name]
>>>                       +--rw name    -> ../../../../../../acl/name
>>>                       +--rw type?   -> ../../../../../../acl/type
>>>                       +--ro ace* [name] {interface-stats or interface-acl-aggregate}?
>>>                          +--ro name               -> ../../../../../../../acl/aces/ace/name
>>>                          +--ro matched-packets?   yang:counter64
>>>                          +--ro matched-octets?    yang:counter64
>>> 
>>> If we added some form of global attachment points, that might be a peer with the list of interface attachments, right? Because we’d need to support “global” and multiple “interface” attachments. It’s not an “or”, it’s an “and”. Or have I missed something?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Einar
>>> 
>>>> On 13 Dec 2017, at 20:10, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> We want to support “global” attachment point down the line, and that “global” attachment point will be one of the choices (the other being the interface), what would this augment look like. Note, as far as I know, you cannot augment inside a choice node.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 13, 2017, at 6:57 AM, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps like this, as an augmentation to the interface:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   augment /if:interfaces/if:interface:
>>>>>     +--rw ingress-acls
>>>>>     |  +--rw acl-sets
>>>>>     |     +--rw acl-set* [name]
>>>>>     |        +--rw name              -> /access-lists/acl/name
>>>>>     |        +--rw type?             -> /access-lists/acl/type
>>>>>     |        +--ro ace-statistics* [name] {interface-stats}?
>>>>>     |           +--ro name               -> /access-lists/acl/aces/ace/name
>>>>>     |           +--ro matched-packets?   yang:counter64
>>>>>     |           +--ro matched-octets?    yang:counter64
>>>>>     +--rw egress-acls
>>>>>        +--rw acl-sets
>>>>>           +--rw acl-set* [name]
>>>>>              +--rw name              -> /access-lists/acl/name
>>>>>              +--rw type?             -> /access-lists/acl/type
>>>>>              +--ro ace-statistics* [name] {interface-stats}?
>>>>>                 +--ro name               -> /access-lists/acl/aces/ace/name
>>>>>                 +--ro matched-packets?   yang:counter64
>>>>>                 +--ro matched-octets?    yang:counter64
>>>>> 
>>>>> Could also put an “aces” container above both these & rename “ingress-acls" to “ingress”, etc. to give a single root for the augmentation if preferred.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Einar
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 19:43, Eliot Lear <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 12/6/17 7:23 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
>>>>>>> How does one move the interface attachment point, currently an
>>>>>>> 'interface-ref', to an augmentation of the if:interfaces/interface,
>>>>>>> inside of the ‘acl’  container? Down the line we might need to have an
>>>>>>> container for "attachment points" to accommodate the possibility of
>>>>>>> attaching an ACL either to an interface or “globally”.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Keeping in mind that one use is that an ACL doesn't attach to an
>>>>>> interface at all.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> 
>> 
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]