Re: [pim] Hi Reshad, the issues about igmp snooping model are addressed. Thanks a lot! Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03

[Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]>]

Hi Reshad,

Thanks for your reply.

In IGMP Snooping, the mrouter interface (i.e. Multicast router interface)  is the interface which connects to the multicast router. So there may be more than one mrouter interfaces in a l2vpn-instance or BRIDGE.
As you say,  an interface refers to l2vpn-instance and l2vpn-instance has lists of ACs and PWs for the same mrouter-interface functionality.

Here is how to configure and show Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) snooping for IPv4 multicast traffic on the Cisco 7600 series routers.
Gi1/1,Gi2/1,Fa3/48 are all the mrouter interfaces in vlan 1.

Displaying Multicast Router Interfaces
When you enable IGMP snooping, the router automatically learns to which interface the multicast
routers are connected.
To display multicast router interfaces, perform this task:
This example shows how to display the multicast router interfaces in VLAN 1:
Router# show ip igmp snooping mrouter vlan 1
vlan ports
-----+----------------------------------------
1 Gi1/1,Gi2/1,Fa3/48,Router


In the current igmp snooping model, we can configure static-mrouter-interface and static-l2-multicast-group either under the igmp-snooping-instance or under the augment /if:interfaces/if:interface. The purpose is to provide the customer more than one way to configure static-mrouter-interface and static-l2-multicast-group.
Maybe it looks in a mess.
If removing the static-mrouter-interface and static-l2-multicast-group under augment /if:interfaces/if:interface is better, I can remove them.


BR/Hongji
赵宏吉

From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 6:25 AM
To: Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; YANG Doctors <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hi Reshad, the issues about igmp snooping model are addressed. Thanks a lot! Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03

Hi Hongji,

I’ve taken a look at the latest rev, thanks for changing the model to augment l2vpn-instance and bridge, I believe this improves the model substantially. Before posting review comments on the latest version, I’d like to get clarifications/closure on the following (this was my 2nd main comment from initial review, email attached).

With the augment of if:interface, we have IGMP/MLD snooping data both under l2vpn-instance or bridge (via the augment) and under if:interface. To me such a segmentation of the IGMP/MLD snooping data is undesirable, is it not possible to have the data for static-mrouter-interface and static-l2-multicast-group under l2vpn-instance or bridge? For example, looking at static-mrouter-interface, we have leaf-lists of ACs/PWs and then under interface we have an l2vpn-instance name (should be leafref btw), so looks like interface refers to l2vpn-instance and l2vpn-instance has lists of ACs and PWs for the same mrouter-interface functionality. I don’t get it.

Regards,
Reshad.

2)            If:interface is augmented and has the name of the l2vpn-instance. This config seems redundant since under l2vpn-instance (draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang)
there is already an interface-ref for AC (Access Circuit). Why not augment the L2VPN endpoint or AC?
--------Augmenting if:interface in this model is used to configure static multicast router interface (static-mrouter-interface) and static l2 multicast forward table.
                    They are the concepts in IGMP/MLD Snooping. Augmenting if:interface could cover BRIDGE and L2VPN scenario at the same time.




From: Hongji Zhao <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, August 6, 2018 at 11:36 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Hi Reshad, the issues about igmp snooping model are addressed. Thanks a lot! Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03

Hi Reshad,

I have updated the draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang according to your comments and upload the latest version.

In the new version I augmented the l2vpn-instance (from draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang) and ieee802-dot1q-bridge module instead of the old reference style. I also addressed your other comments.

Could you please review it again? Thanks a lot!



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang/


BR/Hongji

赵宏吉



FYI, easier to read https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2018-06-28/ than the email below.



On 2018-06-28, 5:42 PM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Reshad Rahman" <[e-mail] on behalf of rrahman=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%20on%20behalf%20of%20rrahman=[e-mail]>> wrote:



    Reviewer: Reshad Rahman

    Review result: On the Right Track



    YANG Doctor review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03 (by Reshad

    Rahman)

1)      The YANG model has a new container+list for bridges and

    “l2vpn-instances”.  Why not augment l2vpn-instance (from

    draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang)? …



    I will have to re-review once the issues are addressed.