Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 01 December 2015 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 4408B1ACE1B; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:54:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 NApCeWSuRM7i; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:54:15 -0800 (PST)
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 5CBBF1ACE10; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:54:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4278; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1448988855; x=1450198455; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=6maZPBg7+JU84wvVB5ESCOyS4fUgu2YTSnzjBZFmI4g=; b=Zpu9qsAxpO3qcE/2GhrvSgRJTIiVUyPs8pzYM3n+uI2rdnYQW7z3frDQ np04KGLfR+4o9QhH1gYGnWaLYFTIHdwcErkARg7EJHCi5pIP/sQN2GbEO gt0HoqhWl0D0QvegLlom6qYl/sz70qNNVWJ+r0BYKj0ZfNxJ1XFKiEJby A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AAAgAR0F1W/4YNJK1egztTbwa+MQENg?= =?us-ascii?q?WYXCoUkSgIcgS84FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ1AQEEAQEBIBE6CxACAQgYAgImAgICJQs?= =?us-ascii?q?VEAIEAQ0FiC4NrCaQaAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARQEgQGKUYd1gUQFj?= =?us-ascii?q?SKJNQGFKYgOnGABHwEBQoQEcgGEaYEHAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,369,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="51542504"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 Dec 2015 16:54:14 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tB1GsEHf015805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:54:14 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:54:13 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:54:13 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Thread-Topic: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg
Thread-Index: AQHRJpn047JQ40dIlkSrKyodTLwzgp6roMYAgAEb1wCACaf3gA==
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:54:13 +0000
Message-ID: <D28339B6.3FA44%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D278C312.3EDF3%acee@cisco.com> <20151124.102441.1278595679799542000.mbj@tail-f.com> <D27A2EC8.3F0A6%acee@cisco.com> <m28u5mjxhf.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <m28u5mjxhf.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
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: [10.116.152.199]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F482C109605C104CAE6607B84792D036@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/mu7xYOxSB-dBDry_yNwfS2eMCLk>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, "rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org" <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 16:54:17 -0000

Hi Lada, 

On 11/25/15, 3:26 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

>"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>  
>> I think using the more generic term, “networking”, at the top would be
>> preferable. What we need is an instance abstraction that covers L3
>
>Hmm, shall we also rename "routing-protocol" to "networking-protocol"?
>Seriously, I am concerned that we are drifting away from the original
>focus of the data model. We should keep in mind it needs to remain
>usable by hosts (even constrained ones) and simple routers because there
>is no other model such devices could use.

In the Routing YANG design team, we are now considering a different
approach which would satisfy this requirement and move the elements the of
ietf-routing. There is no need to rename if we can make this work.

Thanks,
Acee


>
>> (e.g., virtual router or VRF), L2 (e.g., Virtual Switch Instance), or
>> a combination (some EVPN, TRILL, etc). This could be used in lieu of
>> each L2 model creating their own top separate list of instances. For
>> example, the networking-instance could be augmented with both the VPLS
>> and VPWS instances in
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang-00.
>>
>> Some YANG models ascribe greatness from the start, others achieve
>> greatness through refinement, while still others have greatness thrust
>> upon them. routing-cfg would fall into the last category…
>
>If it ever gets finished.
>
>Lada
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee 
>>
>> On 11/24/15, 4:24 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the
>>>> ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support
>>>>I2RS.
>>>> These discussions are ongoing.
>>>> 
>>>> One current change that I would like to propose is to change the base
>>>> instance container from routing-instance to networking-instance.
>>>
>>>Is the idea to simply rename the "routing-instance" container to
>>>"networking-instance"?
>>>
>>>Then we would have:
>>>
>>>   +--rw routing
>>>      +--rw networking-instance
>>>
>>>Would you keep the top-level name "routing"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>/martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This
>>>> would provide an instance definition that could be augmented for L2
>>>> protocols and service functionality as well as L3. It is also
>>>>consistent
>>>> with the term used in both
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-01.txt and
>>>> 
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-rtgwg-network-instance-01.txt.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Acee 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>> 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>
>-- 
>Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C