[OSPF] IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 18 May 2017 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9DF129C35; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYHUoUloopEM; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF270129C3D; Thu, 18 May 2017 12:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3349; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495135661; x=1496345261; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Tft5iuhqxtqNG7r6cgn8AxjFtsSU+0g+o57CyIfMILE=; b=nDIYzoJQhs0J9fHszVNtgDKOp+ktsUqVwDGB3+t5m6WhivyfPaV/dFOj ilaa7GAHjowY6aqElzpi07txtzLXSkZ5kbjOWLzx/2wNZygu4blVQ7Ci2 ZVF0+OpOj9bV1jJZRmILE/kxaobMYGVu5J7QO4m7ET7T6kzcIgGYavaAE c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,359,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217";a="428472318"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 May 2017 19:27:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4IJRd86017644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 May 2017 19:27:40 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ( by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 18 May 2017 15:27:39 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 18 May 2017 15:27:39 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>
CC: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "bfd@ietf.org" <bfd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfd-yang@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
Thread-Index: AQHS0AzPNCpcsovb0EyNL8AaWxic/g==
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 19:27:39 +0000
Message-ID: <D5436DE8.AF5B7%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5436DE8AF5B7aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/kQ2ybA10XE1c7AYqrFQTnMKdj2Q>
Subject: [OSPF] IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 19:32:45 -0000

Hi Jeff,

At the OSPF WG Meeting in Chicago, you suggested that we may want to provide configuration of BFD parameters within the OSPF model (ietf-ospf.yang). We originally did have this configuration. However, after much discussion and coordination with the BFD YANG design team, we agreed to leave the BFD session parameters in BFD and only enable BFD within the OSPF and IS-IS models.

We did discuss the fact that vendors (notably Cisco IOS-XR and Juniper JUNOS) do allow configuration within the IGPs. However, the consensus was to leave the BFD configuration in the BFD model. The heuristics to determine what parameters to use when the same BFD endpoint was configured with different parameters in different protocols were proprietary and somewhat of a hack.

I may have not remembered all the details so I’d encourage others to chime in.