Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model
Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 June 2020 20:07 UTC
Return-Path: <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.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 CB85B3A1154; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 z3ODp4U09YkY; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (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 E08383A0951; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id w6so3696523ejq.6; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nu2lKIlJHdZdhupitCvUloG4w0tXlD6piHUtkqDXAmM=; b=Ed7Lit1p8MfuKZ2ZO5kT2Q5+HrUEspS2ffuyUa3CXmdgjwq7skZcGfbnQQpa/V8P1e t0ujxqtxRW9l71wX4LZs9LQuAcHYmQ7YN/aYjMO4lBuw7HfvYvTn6xMyVQZsjnqw2eD+ a8MpWdMgiKSUjPEwjEO55MMRYark1Ly0W3N4M74WjCC5JQvIBIqru6iiN0CgCI2LH79L pNemuQmcR820d5YdVoV89Lr8XLTXDYWXHL20x8zbho5CZgq4mQsM+8Hqin3f3ICdzhhU ye8dnoDvZliaVjOYL5py7f6pg2XiFJVfYUPjTB0Fc831/LW5hyhHx1pyTNYjMU+5+hZ5 i4gg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nu2lKIlJHdZdhupitCvUloG4w0tXlD6piHUtkqDXAmM=; b=LzZ8xoCkIFHTGSl73hRaRxzGo1Jk8PVpHAWyeINEMg6bWKiAcKoLtYfwL+Do77VGyb YnWVkAdoq9YpWUkGmERxG6xYlJNXS33P0xjsLcd2dTNNwYfVA/SXyAEtoLpEPa/wWHiv iyCc+82oI0OHolrz77+OE9wfhyM6Ap0r1CFinVzWohVY6xKhL4ioHaXgScwGy1PuY2VY v8ip8p93nKmWyv6/JKr1yjsz38sPGIlRcEGVHV1XYX+cGqQFU6OFztY44bKnrtdXGCXp xJUEVzHeEvTJcSkHrFxtPJfCs9WgosJlV+9SarfnFXMXlFcsS/OhSmkYQY0L6/arbG4y Va8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532XiPnOcOeWF3rIOFDCpfrZvPwUfukzma5F1LJYGiRXORdScrD8 DdwHyMfMoq4qk5TS1dAN21fOZjTTspPJYwaVnhM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzoMksOAVQXS5IERYTcJZKWxptdAStkmy6hHKZSxYGn5LrtAL7qSRCOsH+by2mRR8xNnl7SPg+/8ARmlXQNmHA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:fa13:: with SMTP id lo19mr18014411ejb.213.1593029228256; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <3944F9C4-A8B1-41B1-8F67-141069BF7392@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3944F9C4-A8B1-41B1-8F67-141069BF7392@cisco.com>
From: Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:06:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHzoHbutxzgydp3TfeUko1HFsRmhNL47=Afy_rtKwqaagYzJWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, 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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000044601705a8da0577"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/_G3ykNN5dFValCTjPX43-2OlyUA>
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 20:07:13 -0000
Acee, The existing text provides a clear description of import-policy and export-policy. It uses the terms import and export from the point of view of the RIB. I think it is important for the terminology to remain consistent. Chris ====== leaf-list import-policy { type leafref { path "/rt-pol:routing-policy/rt-pol:policy-definitions/" + "rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name"; require-instance true; } ordered-by user; description "List of policy names in sequence to be applied on receiving a routing update in the current context, e.g., for the current peer group, neighbor, address family, etc."; } ============= leaf-list export-policy { type leafref { path "/rt-pol:routing-policy/rt-pol:policy-definitions/" + "rt-pol:policy-definition/rt-pol:name"; require-instance true; } ordered-by user; description "List of policy names in sequence to be applied on sending a routing update in the current context, e.g., for the current peer group, neighbor, address family, etc."; } ========== On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:24 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > 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> > 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> > *Date: *Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 4:21 PM > *To: *Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, 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 > > > > Hi Yingzhen, > > > > Meant to reply earlier. Thanks for responding. > > > > *From: *Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com> > *Date: *Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM > *To: *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 > *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org> > *Resent-To: *<yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, Jeff Tantsura < > jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu < > 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> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:23 PM > *To: *"draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org> > *Subject: *proposed example text and question on > draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model > *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org> > *Resent-To: *<yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, < > acee@cisco.com>, <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 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > >
- proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-… Chris Bowers
- Re: proposed example text and question on draft-i… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: proposed example text and question on draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: proposed example text and question on draft-i… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: proposed example text and question on draft-i… Chris Bowers
- Re: proposed example text and question on draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: proposed example text and question on draft-i… Chris Bowers