Re: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 20 June 2017 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9133A12EC53; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t6FbWBJ1EOK2; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7619F12EC9A; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2172; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497968297; x=1499177897; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=aJYVyECjy3kDECbXw5OOoy9iLZPnyW51f6xTn4G7mzc=; b=Iogk+0RMEV2Cd136HxWmkgW6cBdivKcVc0IMOUypb8wClRvDnAFHulL+ 1BXOvn7AuwE+5YpCc69C0Ping66G4vEFyxktKz149dhnmeBJukIr+/RIQ +l1MAEtas5/01qi/tyInZYQmSCMgCX2NPjHKl05UxO1/BxfulEg2LdGhz A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DGAABsLUlZ/5xdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1iBbweDZIoZkX+VeIIRhiQCGoJHPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUZAQU?= =?us-ascii?q?jEUUQAgEIDgoCAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FiiysKYImi1sBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEggQuKZYRpgxKCYQEEnmECk2CSDpUMAR84gQp0FYVWHIFmdohMgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,364,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="260204383"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jun 2017 14:18:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5KEIFTZ012538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:18:15 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:18:14 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:18:14 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf. org" <rtg-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>
Subject: Re: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
Thread-Topic: IETF OSPF YANG and BFD Configuration
Thread-Index: AQHS6Syo68r6z3GylU2z1PR9VYBctaIsv2uAgAFSJgD//7wogA==
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:18:14 +0000
Message-ID: <D56EA624.B5DD9%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D5436DE8.AF5B7%acee@cisco.com> <38DEB571-2918-4464-B18A-71B24221772F@gmail.com> <47325462-2430-4197-AA8D-D3FEF74A834D@gmail.com> <D5438DD9.298FE6%rrahman@cisco.com> <20170619185715.GB22146@pfrc.org> <D56DC1C7.B5A8F%acee@cisco.com> <20170620142056.GB22550@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170620142056.GB22550@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E1CD30F18D18344FAFF9E12023CE5D85@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/WaiXjh2y2yCTuLxsKThpil_e3Ic>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:18:21 -0000

Jeff, 

On 6/20/17, 10:20 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:

>Acee,
>
>On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:10:43PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> I don’t really feel there is a strong requirement to support different
>> timers values per protocol even though several implementations allow
>> different protocol specific values to be configured (with varying
>> behaviors). 
>> 
>> If there were such a requirement, I would think it would be better
>> satisfied by extending the BFD model session key with an additional
>> identifier, e.g., <interface/dst-ip/instance>.
>
>I suspect multi-instancing may be where this conversation goes.
>
>> IMO, this would be
>> preferable to allowing the details of BFD to permeate into all the other
>> protocol models. This would require configuration of the instance rather
>> than a boolean in the protocols.
>
>My lingering concern is whether the client protocol may have preferences
>about what session to use when such multi-instancing is permitted.
>Minimally this would require some sort of Yang reference to the specific
>instance.

Right - this is what I just said.
>
>As I'm noting in the other response, do we really expect BFD Yang model
>users to pre-provision every single OSPF/ISIS adjacency in the config
>stanza?  Likely, no.

Agreed. 
>
>What I tend to expect is a template being used for a service profile.  We
>don't currently have such a thing.

Agreed. My point is that the BFD specific parameters should in the BFD
model rather than the protocol models.

Acee
>
>-- Jeff