Review comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-01
Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 09 November 2016 15:54 UTC
Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB27129407; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:54:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.019 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_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 0HkHiTTn1s8Z; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D28D9129541; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:54:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3311; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1478706844; x=1479916444; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=6/CEbaJsEOABgsYTV3nI0GJDvKLgCfBVDYiBvBfjcRg=; b=U9CzGGybwXQTkUL3bvTCVxZLYh3biCfblGi8BDZTCMC82DADQHCdW83X Y7lvVCfIWwUNGsslYcUoG/bPOXzJKmuXJ4KeccR3nEI14n9me82lJK+jq k2IUgZcprkTZj5Z7piqqdUaLzEn4d2itniD8IEJXwrD6jkTg8o1lS3sXU k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AsAgBBRiNY/xbLJq1dGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgy8BAQEBAXcsjhCrYIIIK4UvgxsUAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiFCxV2AiYCYAwIAQGIWA6wXYJAi0MBAQgBAQEBHgWBCYU1gX2CXYdMglwFjlqLV4FBhHeKF4l7hh+JW4dkHjcoOw8KG4UUPogbAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,614,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="649818710"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Nov 2016 15:53:58 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.88] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-88.cisco.com [10.63.23.88]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uA9Frwed002123; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:53:58 GMT
To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Subject: Review comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-01
Message-ID: <ac18be07-6c43-55f1-59a4-bef6f92c7c49@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:53:58 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/EUdhGBu2yNdejXh_CFOqEMghLI4>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:54:07 -0000
Hi, I've reviewed draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-01. Generally I approve and agree with the structure, but I have a few main questions/comments followed by some minor comments: Main comments/questions: 1) Has it been considered whether, and how, the IEEE 802.1 bridge YANG model (802.1Qcp) should interact with this network instances model? It would certainly be nice if an 802.1 bridge could possibly sit under a network instance rather than either always being top level, or under a completely separate hierarchy. 2) For the binding between interfaces and network instances the model is using a string rather than a leafref to a network-instance name leaf. Naively it would seem that a leafref would be better than a string since it would ensure that an interface cannot be bound to a network instance that doesn't exist. 3) I presume that there is a notional default network instance that all interfaces/sub-interfaces belong to if they haven't been assigned to a specific network instance. Assuming that this is the case it might be useful if the document mentioned this. 4) The YANG model in chapter 6 is somewhat IP centric. It might be cleaner if there was a single top level network-instances model that covered by L2 and L3, and for the IP augmentations to be in a separate YANG model that augments the layer independent network instances model. 5) The model allows different address families on the same interface to be put in separate network instances, but does it allow for an interface to be put in one network instance, but a particular address family on the same interface to be put in a different network-instance? 6) Considering sub-interfaces, I assume that putting a parent physical (or LAG) interface into a network-instance doesn't also implicitly place any child sub-interfaces in the same network instance. I.e. when considering network-instances each sub-interface can be regarded as a discrete interface object independent of its parent? 7) The OpenConfig network-instances model [https://github.com/openconfig/public/tree/master/release/models/network-instance] allows for a combined L2/L3 network-instance (type = L2L3). Is the intent that the IETF network instance model allows such a construct? Or would this always be modeled using two separate network instances? Should the document discuss this point? Minor comments: 8) Section 1.1. top open issues: This could now hopefully be updated to reference draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00 (or the WG version if it succeeds in getting adopted). 9) I note that the binding from interfaces to network instances is specified on the interface, rather than as a list of interfaces as part of the network instance. I agree with the current approach because the structure of the model trivially enforces that an interface[+address-family] can only be bound to a single network instance. 10) The YANG tree output in Section 2: Overview, page 3: - The diagram shows bind-network-instance-name under ethernet, but I think that it should be shown directly under "interface". (As an aside, I'm not convinced whether lldp should be under ethernet since it should run over other physical layers.) Regards, Rob
- Review comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-01 Robert Wilton