RE: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model

Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> Tue, 21 July 2015 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rjs@rob.sh>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8321A896A for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 h4pZPLGukfJL for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 102AD1A8925 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [176.35.19.128] (helo=corretto.local) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rjs@rob.sh>) id 1ZHcIy-0000ak-8R; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:30:16 +0100
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:30:23 +0100
From: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Message-ID: <etPan.55ae8fbf.2ac767e3.36f@corretto.local>
In-Reply-To: <23963_1437493971_55AE6AD3_23963_745_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A33EC@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <6148_1437392115_55ACDCF3_6148_2234_11_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0AC1@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <E4CCDE37-90A5-4ED5-8E85-3DAD595347C0@pfrc.org> <18735_1437394871_55ACE7B7_18735_2268_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0BB9@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <AE597A9E-B8D5-4E7B-A292-6E1671BD5862@pfrc.org> <2188_1437400730_55ACFE9A_2188_4362_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0CC7@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <23933303-B805-495D-AF0E-9305AED39F0A@pfrc.org> <26470_1437402600_55AD05E8_26470_6250_3_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A0D94@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <etPan.55ae5784.52673c74.36f@corretto.local> <23963_1437493971_55AE6AD3_23963_745_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A33EC@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
X-Mailer: Airmail (303)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="55ae8fbf_d495946_36f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/nW_oPzcTv1s3XUjETU_e9ftLCbM>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?rtgwg=40ietf.org?=" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:30:36 -0000

Hi Stephane,

Thanks for the clarification.

The challenge that we might have here is that there are cases where I may want to match/set the ‘colour’ as well as an IGP tag. For instance, if I want to mark something in the RIB to say that it should be propagated to neighbour sets Amber, Blue and Cyan - which each have their own colour value - but these values also have an associated IGP tag. Given that we can have both, it seems to me that we should prefer to look at something that is like Option B.

IMHO, the intent of the tag we have today [0] is really to be the ‘generic colour’ type of tag, since we did not model IGP policies yet I don’t think that we examined this issue in too much detail — although Jeff and others have pointed it out before, and we marked it as something we did need to look at!

Best,
r.

[0]: I’d recommend using the latest version of the YANG, which is  at https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/experimental/openconfig/policy

On 21 July 2015 at 16:53:15, stephane.litkowski@orange.com (stephane.litkowski@orange.com) wrote:

Sure ...  

In the current version of the doc, option A is : single ‘tag’ type which can represent a protocol tag (it's only related to IGP tags in the draft)  

So I would be in favor of option C :) (slight variation of option A) which is really single ‘tag’ type which can represent a protocol tag, or some purely local ‘colour’ attribute.  


-----Original Message-----  
From: Rob Shakir [mailto:rjs@rob.sh]  
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 16:30  
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Jeffrey Haas  
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org  
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model  

   
Folks,  

There’s some ambiguity in the discussion here, from my perspective:  

Option A: single ‘tag’ type which can represent a protocol tag, or some ‘colour’ attribute.  
Option B: multiple ‘tag’ types, a generic ‘colour’ and then per-protocol tags.  

Right now, oc-policy uses option A. I can see arguments for either - but Stephane I was not clear from your view which of these you prefer - can you clarify for me please?  

Thanks,  
r.  


On 20 July 2015 at 15:30:56, stephane.litkowski@orange.com (stephane.litkowski@orange.com(mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com)) wrote:  

>  
> Inline  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org]  
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 16:05  
> To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF  
> Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org  
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> >  
> > On Jul 20, 2015, at 3:58 PM, stephane.litkowski@orange.com(mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com) wrote:  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > Right, each protocol has its own constraint, but do you think creating an additional generic marker will solve those constraints ? We would expect to be able to have the generic marker to protocol tag and also two protocol tags with different constraints to interact between each other (I mean for example, learning a RIP tag and copying it to ISIS or OSPF).  
> >  
> >  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> My thought is that by not using an element that has protocol semantics, we can free the user from worrying about them when they don't care about whether the route will or will not get redistributed into a protocol that might use it. This is mostly to deal with your "local" property noted earlier.  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> [SLI] Agree, that’s why I was pushing “tag” to be protocol agnostic and having only this tag and then let implementations to manage the translation to protocol tag when necessary.  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -- Jeff  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.  
> _______________________________________________  
> rtgwg mailing list  
> rtgwg@ietf.org  
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg  


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.