Re: [netmod] IETF ACL model

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

An updated version of the model has been posted as part of the PR here <https://github.com/netmod-wg/acl-model/commit/2477cd400cce6d39933c908ad97da27ff759588b>.

The particular change removes any-acl from the model, expands on eth (to ethernet), removes acl- prefix for things like acl-type and acl-name. Please review.

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:17 AM, Kristian Larsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> Thinking about this some more. I'm not sure what it means for the "ACL 
>> Type" to be "any-acl". It seems that the "match any packet" should be a 
>> type of ACE, e.g. perhaps as the last entry of an ACL, rather than a 
>> type of ACL.
> 
> Yes, I agree as so far that any-acl makes no sense as an acl-type. The
> way I understood acl-type, and the way that vendors have told me it will
> be used, is to say "this is an IPv4 ACL" and then on an attachment point
> you can specify that only ACLs of acl-type ipv4-acl can be attached to
> the interface. That makes perfect sense. I do not see how any-acl can
> map into this.
> 
> I agree that any-acl is logically a type of ACE but we don't have an
> ace-type and the exact same information can IMHO already be conveyed
> WITHOUT the any-acl type and thus it has no reason to exist. Nor do we
> need a feature for it.
> 
> From what I can tell the any-acl container in the ACE should be used to
> explicitly signify a match on "any". Think of IOS style ipv4 acl:
>  permit ip any any
> 
> We have to provide a source and destination so this would be a rather
> explicit mapping of that. However, our structure in this YANG model is
> just completely different than an IOS command so I don't see why we
> should try and mimic IOS in the YANg model.
> 
> Not specifying a destination IP address means we match on any
> destination IP address. The same is true for any other field we can
> match on. Not setting a match implies we don't try to match on that
> field, thus we allow "any" value. I think the logical continuation of
> this is that for an ACE with no matches defined at all, we match any
> packet. I think we can update the text to better explain this.
> 
> 
> 
>> Otherwise if the ACL type is "any-acl" then this only allows two types 
>> of ACLs to be defined, neither of which seem to be particularly useful:
>> (1) An ACL that matches all traffic and permits it, i.e. the same as 
>> having no ACL at all.
>> (2) An ACL that matches all traffic and drops.
>> 
>> So I think perhaps the answer here is to define neither ACL type 
>> "any-acl" nor leaf "any". The presumption could be that any ACE that is 
>> configured to match no fields implicitly matches all packets (because 
>> all non specified fields are treated as wildcards), and then applies the 
>> permit/deny rule associated with the ACE. This logic can apply to all 
>> ACL types.
> 
> Yes yes yes :)
> 
>   Kristian.

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]