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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 27 July 2015 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 800C71B2FB6 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 F0WP0zLfNcxN for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C6F1B300A for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B18F01E376; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:50:51 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model
Message-ID: <20150727155051.GF24197@pfrc.org>
References: <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> <etPan.55ae8fbf.2ac767e3.36f@corretto.local> <18774_1437550328_55AF46F8_18774_5612_26_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A3667@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150722073931.GB30425@puck.nether.net> <etPan.55af51be.69dfac96.36f@corretto.local> <9439_1437568985_55AF8FD9_9439_5180_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92166A398C@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D1D97D09.29830%acee@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <D1D97D09.29830%acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/rKcEosmPfEi1zFsx-fc0zmPcPN4>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:50:09 -0000

Acee,

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 05:49:28PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> I’ve read all the E-mails in this thread and I think I agree with Stephane in that a route has one or more tags that are advertised within the protocols and are installed into the appropriate RIB. This is the most straight forward and useful application of tags.
> 
> I think having two types of tags for routes (local and IGP) will only add complexity and confusion.

What do you think the model should say about redistribution of tags that are
out of range of the protocol in question?

What do you think, if anything, the model should have in the way of
constraints on this scenario?  Note that this is a leading question since we
don't get constraints on operational state until yang 1.1, if I recall
correctly.

-- Jeff