Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] yang models intended for the mpls wg

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@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 74BA31B304B; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 BzvSM4qgaB5t; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (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 437AD1B2B93; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so84575155igb.0; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yRaaZyjcVa/SC6YuH0Rn6U2U5whZzm7MTPZAw1legro=; b=S8XNjhmlfG0t7SZvzeMFHa+boa++/rRKG44vgMN8cDmofgc9eeOhMpWhqt0LmATlwu oh4oKBFBagD74VhK01A3l/IPEpBVlrBnNgncDxJeDnL4C6p5Pe8lTm+2j60dPAMbIFmc BlRhHTm6mIS+rH09GxxpewxfQi5EeoIrhD0j5yhy7I2/uLkwsnvanBQ/99pB7eZ1Acgd BT/Y5UvysrVdhIm3v1jHczs0+4C4iTK9+Pww/oRSEDfUPUWkDxgfuGzGG+CEfkaqvTQu F+8rjfKdo0whW7NhxSExZZTISr3qNDlExXRQ1S3QQT0361avWzybCMXoJKflJlbhQhia Q8Ww==
X-Received: by 10.50.64.147 with SMTP id o19mr20407471igs.33.1438014871612; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.135] (dsl-173-206-13-140.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.13.140]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j3sm6336337ige.0.2015.07.27.09.34.30 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
References: <55B207DD.8060502@pi.nu> <5436B667-6766-4F3D-902E-C4929D4A0240@gmail.com> <55B37EB3.60508@gmail.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221884D17@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <55B648D9.7060403@gmail.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1122188504D@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <55B64F77.9010308@gmail.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112218850B1@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55B65D96.9050608@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:34:30 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112218850B1@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/hVYjOGBBPwPEv4ZVYHpbuhEjzB8>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] yang models intended for the mpls wg
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:34:40 -0000

I do not consider ping to have localization capability. That's why I 
consider BFD to be the functional equivalent.

Review is certainly something that LIME will welcome, I'm sure.

Tom

On 27/07/2015 11:51 AM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> I don't think that BFD is or will be used as on-demand OAM tool as it does not have localization capability. Ping or traceroute are more suitable, in my opinion. But if that is how LIME model maps existing OAM tools, then I'd encourage presenting and asking for review of the LIME model by WGs that designed this OAM mechanisms, e.g. MPLS Ping and BFD.
>
> 	Regards,
> 		Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 8:34 AM
> To: Gregory Mirsky; Mahesh Jethanandani; Loa Andersson
> Cc: rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org; YANG Doctors
> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] yang models intended for the mpls wg
>
> I am not claiming that the capabilities of LSP ping are limited to those of tracert, or that the capabilities of BFD are limited to those of ping. I am saying that if I want to request these two functions (continuity check and hop-by-hop path characterization) at a generic level then the corresponding implementations at the MPLS technology-specific level would be invoked when the LIME RPCs were invoked at the boundaries of an MPLS segment.
>
> The idea would be that once a fault was localized to that segment and to the MPLS layer as opposed to a supporting layer, the manager could invoke the technology-specific models as necessary to get details.
>
> Tom
>
> On 27/07/2015 11:18 AM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> I think I cannot agree with any of your comparisons.
>> LSP Ping provides both on-demand ping and traceroute functions.
>> BFD, if you refer to RFC 5880, provides variety of functions, primarily as proactive continuity check (Asynchronous and on-demand modes, as well as ping by Echo mode). RFC 5884 BFD over MPLS LSP consider only Asynchronous mode.
>> One can argue that ping may be used as proactive continuity check mechanism but that is not what it was originally designed and such application would, most likely, require use of another application, e.g. Measurement Agent per LMAP Reference model.
>>
>> I think it would be really helpful to define relationships between objects of LIME model and models specified in MPLS, BFD and other groups that had developed OAM tools that broadly used in the industry.
>>
>> 	Regards,
>> 		Greg
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 8:06 AM
>> To: Gregory Mirsky; Mahesh Jethanandani; Loa Andersson
>> Cc: rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org; YANG Doctors
>> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] yang models intended for the mpls wg
>>
>> LSP ping really corresponds to the generic tracert model, in that it provides hop-by-hop path characterization. I can see the LIME tracert RPC being invoked, and the MPLS nodes returning the parameters defined for that RPC to the extent that they correspond to what LSP ping reports.
>>
>> BFD seems to correspond quite nicely to LIME ping in terms of the function performed.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 27/07/2015 1:36 AM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>>> Hi Tom,
>>> what is relationship between MPLS LSP Ping and "generic ping" models? Or, between BFD and "generic continuity check"?
>>>
>>> 	Regards,
>>> 		Greg
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Tom Taylor
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 5:19 AM
>>> To: Mahesh Jethanandani; Loa Andersson
>>> Cc: rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org; YANG Doctors
>>> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] yang models intended for the mpls wg
>>>
>>> The generic ping module is a LIME work item.
>>>
>>> Tom Taylor
>>>
>>> On 24/07/2015 9:24 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
>>>> [with yang doctor hat on]
>>>>
>>>> Loa,
>>>>
>>>> Has there been any discussion around how these models interact with each other or how the mpls WG would like to see the models structured.
>>>>
>>>> For example, from this list of models (and I admit I have not looked at a complete list of mpls related yang models or each in detail), a couple of questions arise.
>>>>
>>>> - Is there a plan for a generic mpls yang model?
>>>> - plan for a more specific mpls-tp, mpls-te etc. yang model (they could be an extension of the more generic mpls model)?
>>>> - plan for a generic ping module (may belong in NETMOD WG)?
>>>> - plan for a mpls ping module (again an extension of the more generic ping module that interfaces with mpls module)?
>>>> - plan for a ldp module that interfaces with the mpls module?
>>>> - plan for a rsvp-te module that interfaces with mpls-te module?
>>>>
>>>> Having some structure to the models would probably help these and other yang authors in their design.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 24, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> There are four yang models intended for the MPLS working group, we
>>>>> have not yet started the process of adoption as working group documents.
>>>>> The four documents are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. draft-zhang-mpls-tp-yang-oam (announced earlier) 2.
>>>>> draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg (announced now) 3.
>>>>> draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model (announced now) 4.
>>>>> draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang (announced now)
>>>>>
>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>>>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>>>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>>>>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>>>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>>
>>
>