Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 13 October 2015 18:25 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 B8FCE1A1A1D; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
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 42tDxfHugH7v; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E99A51A0439; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5690; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444760734; x=1445970334; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=pVu00i/w5YXJQZfO4SD1H/eJxw0fJNcuLZe0W/5n+lA=; b=K2dX6L1IiG7CUB/9xVxCAn+rFQBLEqSJeiTXGf6mKPSsxkoR3LE9tn2+ 1wfDvFkNA0XIwJgmb2qLkJt4uVfOsvq9iF1iIdx+o+zs4KpeGOZ7KG9WT lpo6nv7+8w6Q23ZDAZJIAaSyqlBPb+YU9UH0d0I6tsHSMtSxpZqIdQDDd M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BZAgAoSx1W/5xdJa1egyZUbga+DQENgVoXCoJyggo1SgIcgS04FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQmAQEBAwEBAQEgEToEBxACAQgYAgImAgICJQsVEAIEDgWIJggNrluTRQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEgSKKUYQ0DhgYGweCaYFFBZYWAY0ZnAcBHwEBQoQCcYUoAh4HHIEGAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,679,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="197041838"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2015 18:25:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9DIPXdb014402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:25:33 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:25:19 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:25:19 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg
Thread-Index: AQHRAmpn2WDjXB7SH0yyXI3vdDB1jJ5jMMMAgAZwt4CAAFZcgP//3TyA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:25:19 +0000
Message-ID: <D242C30E.34C2A%acee@cisco.com>
References: <7E24547E-B42B-46E2-AF76-F7639D61963F@nic.cz> <D23D3103.34500%acee@cisco.com> <D2429721.34A0E%acee@cisco.com> <DBF22257-A7A2-4679-927A-EBCC1022FE13@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <DBF22257-A7A2-4679-927A-EBCC1022FE13@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: <CA8A7A1B865FB04696B12D21609F6980@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/oQNsCPCZrX4j3fjEw0L3KGDLHzk>
Cc: Routing YANG <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] rib-data-model and 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, 13 Oct 2015 18:25:35 -0000


On 10/13/15, 12:30 PM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz>; wrote:

>
>> On 13 Oct 2015, at 17:20, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lada, NETMOD,
>> 
>> So I think we should move forward this ietf-rtg-cfg so that it can be
>> augmented and other work can move forward. We are still in disagreement
>> with respect to routing-instance/interface configuration.
>> 
>>    - We feel the IPv4/IPv6 interfaces should reference the
>> routing-instance in their config state. This is consistent with
>> draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-01.txt.
>>    - You feel that the routing-instance should have a list of leaf-ref’s
>> to the interface. You believe the leaf-ref provides a level of
>>validation
>> due to the fact that references can be confined to routing-instance
>> references. However, heretofore, no models are referencing the interface
>> leaf-refs in the list.
>
>True, these models (ietf-isis, for instance) use leafrefs with
>"if:interface-ref" type. However, such leafrefs are under-constrained
>because they can be configured to refer to:
>
>- interfaces of any layer, including physical interfaces, VLAN trunks etc.

Actually, putting the routing-instance reference in the IPv4 and IPv6
interface models (i.e., RFC 7277) constrains the reference to layer 3 more
effectively than the list of leaf-refs.

>
>- interfaces assigned to any routing instance.

But the list of leaf-refs doesn’t insure an IPv4 interface or IPv6
interface isn’t included by a single routing-instance.

>
>I believe in all these cases the choice has to be limited to (1) L3
>interfaces, and (2) belonging to "own" routing instance. These
>constraints will have to be checked in server code somehow - I would
>prefer to have them represented in the data model.
>
>But if nobody shares this concern with me, I am not going to block the
>document on this issue.

I’d also be interested if anyone shares this concern.

Thanks,
Acee 


>
>Lada 
>
>> 
>> Other than the Routing YANG Design Team having chosen the first option -
>> are there any other opinions?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> On 10/9/15, 9:00 AM, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
>> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Lada, 
>>> I2RS is not chartered to do the base models. There are other routing
>>> models that reference routing-cfg and even in-progress implementations.
>>> 
>>> On 10/9/15, 4:13 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
>>> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz>; wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I am sorry for cross-posting but I think it is high time to decide the
>>>> relationship between the data models in i2rs-rib-data-model and
>>>> netmod-routing-cfg I-Ds because they clearly target the same
>>>>management
>>>> data in a router. I can see three possible scenarios:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. The i2rs-rib module will be modified to augment
>>>> ietf-routing/ietf-ipv[46]-unicast-routing.
>>> 
>>> This would seem to be the obvious choice.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2. The scope of ietf-routing will be changed so that it would address
>>>> only host routing and simple routers. The modelling work for advanced
>>>> routers will be done elsewhere.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. The work on netmod-routing-cfg will be stopped.
>>> 
>>> A fourth option would be for me to take over ownership, move the work
>>>to
>>> the RTG WG, and we’d recruit some strong authors/reviewers from
>>>operators
>>> and other vendors (involving the ADs in selection).
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Opinions?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, Lada
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>>>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> 
>
>--
>Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>
>
>
>