Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 24 June 2020 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 368293A1135; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 header.b=YP/DNoiM; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=HklDo9ix
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 CU9CTCfAV58c; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0B823A10C2; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=50853; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1593026668; x=1594236268; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=fyCSx5KYHgk6YFSNCAFpfXSbxymhiV3Uu6bxuMPf9ag=; b=YP/DNoiM8spjWgICeqVeNEvrL9YkiVHGP0/arT9UdZZ7t0h70CYbI0JX PGRFxAxy8yqo9nlFmDxvAHWEeJQZMkbqttEiL3qJtdD+/UfpeAJs+xcjV +e7hI3HGqVAbAGv+0Cc6AvpA9+NC7x4uDJi2T55rAgO1G3w+5PiqRhJlG M=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:OdxyPBNSREdQjmLK79Ul6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEvKwx3lDMVITfrflDjrmev6PhXDkG5pCM+DAHfYdXXhAIwcMRg0Q7AcGDBEG6SZyibyEzEMlYElMw+Xa9PBtaHc//YxvZpXjhpTIXEw/0YAxyIOm9E4XOjsOxgua1/ZCbYwhBiDenJ71oKxDjpgTKvc5Qioxneas=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CwAAAQqPNe/40NJK1mGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBAQEBAgIBAQEBggqBIy8jLgdvWC8sCoQag0YDjUeKAI5XglIDUAULAQEBDAEBGAEKCgIEAQGERwIXgX4CJDgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVbDIVyAQEBAQMBARARBBkBASwLAQ8CAQgRAwECIQEGAwICAh8GCxQJCAIEAQ0FIoMEAYF+TQMuAQ6sQwKBOYhhdn8zgwEBAQWFKQ0Lgg4DBoE4gmeJfRqCAIEQKByCTT6CGkIBAYE3SAYHCYJeM4ItkXQ9hj0mmwpNCoJalEOEbAMdnwOMToRrjG+RXAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaiKBVnAVOyoBgj5QFwINjh6DcYUUhUJ0AjUCBgEHAQEDCXyOCoE0AYEQAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,276,1589241600"; d="scan'208,217";a="790306683"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 24 Jun 2020 19:24:27 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05OJORhk019985 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:24:27 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:24:27 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:24:26 -0500
Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:24:26 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hQwdQy+oG1pB05e8JQjUv5ZI7EnI47PitapcSRm3oy77xFwQ/XY+eLIY/YQAYePh3E5NmqsnBi/PPP8EOa9KtauscdwMNJdDz4NwQbl8ImDRgMJ3BBfv5HwDFcke/mYybGsWkTgm5WD/OizK0ez48RKWSoPuRSbdrAwRju9N2/h0Yqw1Hv7qFLIn0cUE4GSTVZJMUj9R5JrhK6WVt/mWl+eGHhhBppqYVuztOZ1Ah7q1zp60OYemQ2hz0vuA5BZurfaJLz15jYnM6nb9eEUVBeW9R8XPqKzmV48JEslNdWR79MaltFhWmS7nNTg8VBnwIGaD9wJ3yAiw/0ESBhPKHg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=fyCSx5KYHgk6YFSNCAFpfXSbxymhiV3Uu6bxuMPf9ag=; b=lwnCmFwjviRcd4fAsm6G6ZDR1COzL8XhLfPDrOUJHTyK2vMTcCg7RfkX/5dspdZKl0p85IJ6x/k+xrvbn2yKUk/KoLtTjAhfwYRJKxi1JBAeVSYwd5ZWF5v1M7amkfpUIFQzxvM6h9hHqdDqBTPOX/ghkMER5xvLd1j5gLaO15M9SWjQA4FF/wypyURVA7884g6pcFDZJlWmWDqvxmEfYHSGCE1lj2x7pqu7vHMnkydXzZ56aoSACjKZYOZn4vXh7/WNlKeRI3ytH27EDBBc+h8ZueY1PcA3SAtwewZb2AK1aLZlB0drijN3AfpOsUfu6eFl3SQoT4in3JrtZUJ3Dw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=fyCSx5KYHgk6YFSNCAFpfXSbxymhiV3Uu6bxuMPf9ag=; b=HklDo9ixzX9WLNRZxqj9G8bTtARrxy+nY0pTvnP5kbZikEtSJAD0LhdAksdHtJXfOMkL8uoIsoT24p3X/OIzOEGawOn2uCq6wAeKsonJHrJ0WtTUcA1WH7u8W3JoBoqNnFVX02RsgloF+I73CMZNyNVcwuPmVFVJy2J/CgO+4f0=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:89::27) by BYAPR11MB3464.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:7d::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3131.21; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:24:24 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::70a6:bb5b:16b:4f9b]) by BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::70a6:bb5b:16b:4f9b%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3109.027; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:24:24 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>
CC: Chris Bowers <cbowers107@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model
Thread-Topic: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model
Thread-Index: AQHWP21vQ87pHIyl9UuUmOcb0l/2h6jfCVMA///DJYCAAKPwgIAItKGA///TLAA=
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:24:24 +0000
Message-ID: <3944F9C4-A8B1-41B1-8F67-141069BF7392@cisco.com>
References: <CAMTSGm3uf+KU_0N6Qp46aMBKDnmrU4rsMopEZmzGfzEXpbSCZw@mail.gmail.com> <1E614E2C-41B5-4BFF-9ADD-EAD6777140E3@futurewei.com> <944EDA5F-9D6C-4CA1-95A3-1B16D33A54D9@cisco.com> <06A523A6-3EA7-4F73-8865-EEC79F27CCCA@futurewei.com> <CAHzoHbsq3rsMe00xuw+C665G959UfORfm_RC3PSEGME5HvCybw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHzoHbsq3rsMe00xuw+C665G959UfORfm_RC3PSEGME5HvCybw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.38.20061401
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [136.56.133.70]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3a94ab8f-03d6-4bba-fa49-08d818743462
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB3464:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB3464944FCE3C8671C8B97580C2950@BYAPR11MB3464.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0444EB1997
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: FCD8o/4GVFd5leQdpDpl0cm5iLIsP+awlJY6i3/zTYrDQ3NEbiK7YR+5eKIGTw4W4a3F9JmTqZd/xQipKP1Ihd6fLiTZz7XZjfRn4IdY3sk7XC8oFDXIUGMLVx8jhKFwcKOPPWxCGhcrEKr88pe0RqIdq/HTSAB4zjyfeDFulzrgezKVbfiWsJKBxZMTLt482efTU7mPVkXYCDnvTXt3JMHKX5jzjBNiqD9rZD68fYTjbLrih9wIKgLEtsf5zNxbGwZRZfAeRr2x+0u5mth7NuIPQfJLHqIy9S0o6xclvzJzh9ctucP75NsYWtX7xl2RYLg2IBnOeRIBpYt/ICxPKU9PFAuL0g0e5RZsfb6HVHebyVYzWxUST0f+05GsAP1qIClWgyZK4aMu9QKJvsPs8Q==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(376002)(366004)(4326008)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(186003)(2906002)(2616005)(66476007)(36756003)(110136005)(26005)(6506007)(53546011)(5660300002)(316002)(166002)(54906003)(83380400001)(86362001)(71200400001)(9326002)(478600001)(33656002)(6486002)(8676002)(66946007)(6512007)(966005)(8936002)(76116006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3944F9C4A8B141B18F67141069BF7392ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3a94ab8f-03d6-4bba-fa49-08d818743462
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jun 2020 19:24:24.5890 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ChbwepXO/dyLq0ynpP6z4NPzUmgIESfXpBwas5XhIzs68OzLyBJQ+E5cbMAtD8DK
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB3464
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/L7oUpR52CEsFDkGvuEdtS43Kdx4>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Jun 2020 19:24:31 -0000

Hi Chris,

From: Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 2:05 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>
Cc: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers107@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Yingzhen,

I think the following changes in naming are clearer:

set-import-level -> set-export-level
import-level -> export-level

IS-IS is the protocol where it ultimately is advertised so it is imported here and NOT from the protocol from which is is exported. Between import and export, the former is clearly cleaner.

I understand that the model supports both import and export policies. However, as far as I can tell, 'isis-level-2' should never be used in an import policy, only an export policy.   Instead, 'isis-level-2-type' would be used in an import policy.  The name change that I propose above makes this clear.

Acee's proposal to use 'set-level' for isis-level-2 leaves this unclear.

See above. set-isis-level is probably better than set-level. In any case, we aren’t going to change as you suggest.

Thanks,
Acee


Thanks,
Chris

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:08 AM Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>> wrote:
Hi Acee and Chris,

I will change the name in next revision with other comments.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 4:21 PM
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>>, Chris Bowers <cbowers107@gmail.com<mailto:cbowers107@gmail.com>>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>>, "rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>" <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model

Hi Yingzhen,

Meant to reply earlier. Thanks for responding.

From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>>
Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers107@gmail.com<mailto:cbowers107@gmail.com>>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the review and proposed examples, really appreciate.

I’ve uploaded a new version of the draft and included the example to demonstrate route redistribution between ospf and isis. I didn’t include the one to install ospf routes to RIB considering this is default behavior unless you specify a policy to limit the ospf routes installation.

Regarding the name, the model supports both import and export modes, so I didn’t want to simply change the name to “set-export-level”, but open to suggestions. The model also provides a grouping “apply-policy-group” that can be used by routing protocols for route redistributions, and there are descriptions about it in Section 6.

I Think we should change it to set-isis-level or simply set-level.

Thanks,
Acee


Thanks,
Yingzhen

From: Chris Bowers <cbowers107@gmail.com<mailto:cbowers107@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:23 PM
To: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>>, "rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>" <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>>, <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>, <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:23 PM

I would like to propose adding the following example to the text of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model
to better illustrate how the model will work in practice with routing policies involving IGPs.
The proposed text is shown below.

I think that the example below also illustrates a problem with the naming of what is currently called "import-level" and "set-import-level".  In the example, the export policy called "export-all-OSPF-prefixes-into-ISIS-level-2" uses the "set-import-level"  action.  As far as I can tell, it only makes sense to use "set-import-level" in an export policy, and not in an import policy.  If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to call it "set-export-level"?

===========
Proposed text for new IGP routing policy example:

This example illustrates the import and export policies corresponding to the following scenario.
All routes that are learned via OSPF advertisements should get installed in the RIB.
All routes in the RIB that have been learned from OSPF advertisements corresponding to
OSPF intra-area and inter-area route types should get advertised into ISIS level 2 advertisements.

          <policy-definitions>
           <policy-definition>
             <name>import-all-OSPF</name>
             <statements>
               <statement>
                 <name>term-0</name>
                 <conditions>
                   <match-prefix-set>
                     <prefix-set>all-prefixes</prefix-set>
                   </match-prefix-set>
                 </conditions>
                 <actions>
                   <policy-result>accept-route</policy-result>
                 </actions>
               </statement>
             </statements>
           </policy-definition>
              <policy-definition>
             <name>export-all-OSPF-prefixes-into-ISIS-level-2</name>
             <statements>
               <statement>
                 <name>term-0</name>
                 <conditions>
                   <match-prefix-set>
                     <prefix-set>all-prefixes</prefix-set>
                   </match-prefix-set>
                   <match-route-type>
                     <proto-route-type>ospf-internal-type</proto-route-type>
                   </match-route-type>
                 </conditions>
                 <actions>
                   <set-import-level>
                     <import-level>isis-level-2</import-level>
                   </set-import-level>
                   <policy-result>accept-route</policy-result>
                 </actions>
               </statement>
             </statements>
           </policy-definition>
         </policy-definitions>

==========

Thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg