IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [Teas] [mpls] Generic LSP Yang

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 07 March 2015 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7451A8AFC; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:47:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 nv25GS90-kgP; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 382A31A8944; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iebtr6 with SMTP id tr6so18802128ieb.2; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 03:47:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=KIL9YhltzCEfaudBN6DptPw+SBWWO39pPiMNcYg6Uwg=; b=IZEpRcdUn8NecUTYgDMVLk9oIU1oRuFBz8eaC5dXM0dPSiKO9doJ/q1b7Q04q4Dlxs 7GjjPqlQmgXYltWKfMoEA8luKATBW/O9I6nvDy32Jcapzi5EjRrN//pCZgSRN9LEwJ1Q hy8HrHtIZ+LkpIM3Ndijha3a7oyQdxVgrSXpiR0q4R+Qb8dv06ek1q4VG4yRqZtZTGsP mUGPvLdYoBHwfA/LKtyc/OQ3kGEP/pbyi36sJX3LZ0RtsdYn8pvmcRYJAZ849/x0vnRj xSWpTfODu8LclqObRYp8GwV7wFyyJkjtF281qdn5h2LZI/yoeoEXwBZomqTDNRVLU0Zn 4MhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.131.196 with SMTP id oo4mr34713906igb.2.1425728864709; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 03:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.136.156 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:47:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1c6cb7c87b1d44c880ddabb5947ebcea@ATL-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com>
References: <CAB75xn5UZDW-aWaZpQYtu_22b8ts6mOC+tS9wqctWEmx1WY-iw@mail.gmail.com> <54F88FE0.9040206@labn.net> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8705236A@BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com> <1c6cb7c87b1d44c880ddabb5947ebcea@ATL-SRV-MBX1.advaoptical.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 12:47:44 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8rM4PVxET_R5zMNNlI6UAfaRfos
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnAD-2_dMQ-xZMYi_M4PoLtRp2RYQx-m54CcM7-AKrFdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e146587353e0510b15ed2
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/ZytUfBjosyjyw2SPMKhsiZvT9kA>
Cc: "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [Teas] [mpls] Generic LSP Yang
X-BeenThere: rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"List to discuss coordination between the Routing related YANG models\"" <rtg-yang-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-yang-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:47:46 -0000

I would agree with Igor.

Other then name overlap those are completely different technologies and
artificially putting them under "LSP" umbrella just does not bring any
value, but only confuses things even more.

Q: What SPRING-LSP has anything in common with "label" when you use v6
header ?

If you want to search for some commonalities let's remove LDP-LSPs from
this mix (as the is not relevant) and leave TE-LSP & SPRING + maybe also
add BIER as well as change the name to Generic-EP (Engineered Paths).

I see no value of goruping based on the fact that data plane uses mpls
labels, but rather I would see reasonable to provide models based on the
transport path characteristics for the traffic it is to carry.

Best,
r.


On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>
wrote:

> Druv,
>
> IMHO TE-LSP, LDP-LSP and SPRING-LSP have nothing in common. They should
> have totally independent models each being developed in respective WG.
>
> Igor
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email