Re: [Teas] OTN topology YANG model (draft-zhang-ccamp-l1-topo-yang )
"Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com> Sat, 08 October 2016 07:12 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.xian@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB6112950D; Sat, 8 Oct 2016 00:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 qWQ7o169C61P; Sat, 8 Oct 2016 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6975C129519; Sat, 8 Oct 2016 00:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CSP10745; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 07:12:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA416-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.35) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Sat, 8 Oct 2016 08:12:31 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.52]) by SZXEMA416-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sat, 8 Oct 2016 15:12:26 +0800
From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OTN topology YANG model (draft-zhang-ccamp-l1-topo-yang )
Thread-Index: AQHSITNSgcTjPnbKdUit8YiX/ZOsyw==
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 07:12:26 +0000
Message-ID: <C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B7DF44A6F@SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <AM5PR0601MB2641B92135374262B8B5F855B1F00@AM5PR0601MB2641.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B7DF3C0E1@SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD007863908F066AA@dfweml501-mbx>
In-Reply-To: <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD007863908F066AA@dfweml501-mbx>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.63.139.68]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B7DF44A6FSZXEMA512MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090206.57F89C62.0028, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.8.52, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 98ab55913ef3966578ad74cfce8c7c62
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/8jqpboNZJepMgP2vly9kHv5TL3s>
Cc: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] OTN topology YANG model (draft-zhang-ccamp-l1-topo-yang )
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 07:12:40 -0000
Hi, Igor, I changed the recipient to ccamp mailing list since this discussion should be of interest to the CCAMPers. To answer your question: No; not at the moment. I am aware that GMPLS OSPF-TE extensions usually follow the 8-level priority info., but they are not used that much. Do you and others see the need when reporting ODU resource information via controller northbound interface as well? I am open to suggestions. Regards, Xian 发件人: Igor Bryskin 发送时间: 2016年9月19日 20:18 收件人: Zhangxian (Xian); Xufeng Liu; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Oscar Gonzalez De Dios; Tarek Saad; Himanshu Shah; Lou Berger; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); Susan Hares; Zafar Ali (zali); Khaddam, Mazen (CCI-Atlanta); Tony Le; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Beller, Dieter (Dieter); Rajan Rao; xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com; Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT); Anurag Sharma 抄送: teas@ietf.org 主题: RE: IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Meeting Notes - 2016-09-12 Hi Xian, The ODUk counters will be on per priority level, correct? Igor From: Zhangxian (Xian) Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:53 PM To: Xufeng Liu; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Igor Bryskin; Oscar Gonzalez De Dios; Tarek Saad; Himanshu Shah; Lou Berger; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); Susan Hares; Zafar Ali (zali); Khaddam, Mazen (CCI-Atlanta); Tony Le; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Beller, Dieter (Dieter); Rajan Rao; xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>; Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT); Anurag Sharma Cc: teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> Subject: Re: IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Meeting Notes - 2016-09-12 Hi, Xufeng, All, Thanks for the minutes. For the following point: “ > The data type "decimal64" is not convenient for OTN because the bandwidth is desired to be expressed as the number of channels, like 2 ODU1's. Participants agreed to suggest an augmentation in the OTN model, and not to change this model. “ We do plan to update the OTN topology model to include this information: augment /nd:networks/nd:network/lnk:link/tet:te/tet:config: +--rw available-odu-info* [odu-type] | +--rw odu-type identityref | +--rw number? uint16 Any comments are welcome. Another point related to this discussion: I notice the following attributes in TE-topology model: should they be removed? | +--rw time-division-multiplex-capable | +--rw minimum-lsp-bandwidth? decimal64 | +--rw indication? enumeration Regards, Xian 发件人: Xufeng Liu [mailto:xliu@kuatrotech.com] 发送时间: 2016年9月16日 5:14 收件人: Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Igor Bryskin; Oscar Gonzalez De Dios; Tarek Saad; Himanshu Shah; Lou Berger; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); Susan Hares; Zafar Ali (zali); Khaddam, Mazen (CCI-Atlanta); Tony Le; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Beller, Dieter (Dieter); Rajan Rao; Zhangxian (Xian); xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>; Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT); Anurag Sharma 抄送: teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> 主题: IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Meeting Notes - 2016-09-12 Participants: Igor, Xufeng, Anurag, Dieter, Sergio - Discussed attributes that are potentially technology specific. > Dieter has sent an email describing a list of such attributes. > Participants discussed the list. > The following section is not applicable to non-packet networks such as OCH and OTN, because the delay and bandwidth variations do not exist. We will move the section to packet augmentation: | +-rw performance-metric-throttle {te-performance-metric}? | | +-rw unidirectional-delay-offset? uint32 | | +-rw measure-interval? uint32 | | +-rw advertisement-interval? uint32 | | +-rw suppression-interval? uint32 | | +-rw threshold-out | | | +-rw unidirectional-delay? uint32 | | | +-rw unidirectional-min-delay? uint32 | | | +-rw unidirectional-max-delay? uint32 | | | +-rw unidirectional-delay-variation? uint32 | | | +-rw unidirectional-packet-loss? decimal64 | | | +-rw unidirectional-residual-bandwidth? decimal64 | | | +-rw unidirectional-available-bandwidth? decimal64 | | | +-rw unidirectional-utilized-bandwidth? decimal64 | | +-rw threshold-in | | | +-rw unidirectional-delay? uint32 | | | +-rw unidirectional-min-delay? uint32 | | | +-rw unidirectional-max-delay? uint32 | | | +-rw unidirectional-delay-variation? uint32 | | | +-rw unidirectional-packet-loss? decimal64 | | | +-rw unidirectional-residual-bandwidth? decimal64 | | | +-rw unidirectional-available-bandwidth? decimal64 | | | +-rw unidirectional-utilized-bandwidth? decimal64 | | +-rw threshold-accelerated-advertisement | | +-rw unidirectional-delay? uint32 | | +-rw unidirectional-min-delay? uint32 | | +-rw unidirectional-max-delay? uint32 | | +-rw unidirectional-delay-variation? uint32 | | +-rw unidirectional-packet-loss? decimal64 | | +-rw unidirectional-residual-bandwidth? decimal64 | | +-rw unidirectional-available-bandwidth? decimal64 | | +-rw unidirectional-utilized-bandwidth? decimal64 To retain the delay information, add the following: delay-metric? uint32 > The data type "decimal64" is not convenient for OTN because the bandwidth is desired to be expressed as the number of channels, like 2 ODU1's. Participants agreed to suggest an augmentation in the OTN model, and not to change this model. | +-rw interface-switching-capability* [switching-capability] | | +-rw switching-capability identityref | | +-rw encoding? identityref | | +-rw max-lsp-bandwidth* [priority] | | | +-rw priority uint8 | | | +-rw bandwidth? decimal64 | +-rw max-link-bandwidth? decimal64 | +-rw max-resv-link-bandwidth? decimal64 | +-rw unreserved-bandwidth* [priority] | | +-rw priority uint8 | | +-rw bandwidth? decimal64 > Discussed the deficiency of the above data type "decimal64", because it cannot represent very large number. Agreed to change the data type to a type representing IEEE 32 bit floating point number. - Discussed the operator requirement to have the geo-location on node and link-tp (3 GPS values) > Following is the proposal. > Add the section on node, link-tp, and tunnel-tp. > Discussed whether to use rw or ro? Most agreed to use ro since user requested update does not make sense. If the attribute needs to be updated by provider operator, some other mechanism is needed. > precision: 8th decimal place will have the precision 1.1mm. Oscar to check with the operator use cases. augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node: +--rw te-node-id? te-types:te-node-id +--rw te! +--rw config +--ro state | +--ro te-node-attributes | | +--ro schedules | | +--ro admin-status? te-types:te-admin-status | | +--ro connectivity-matrix* [id] | | +--ro domain-id? uint32 + | | +--ro geolocation + | | | +--ro altitude? int64 + | | | +--ro latitude? geographic-coordinate-degree + | | | +--ro longitude? geographic-coordinate-degree typedef geographic-coordinate-degree { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 8; } description "Decimal degree (DD) used to express latitude and longitude geographic coordinates."; } Thanks, - Xufeng Note: Please drop me an email if you need an invite for joining the weekly call. P.S. We are planning to change the weekly meeting time. Please send your preference.
- [Teas] IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Meeting… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Mee… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [Teas] IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Mee… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] OTN topology YANG model (draft-zhang-c… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [Teas] OTN topology YANG model (draft-zhang-c… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] OTN topology YANG model (draft-zhang-c… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] OTN topology YANG model (draft-zhang-c… Dieter Beller
- Re: [Teas] [CCAMP] OTN topology YANG model (draft… Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)
- Re: [Teas] IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Mee… Dieter Beller
- Re: [Teas] [CCAMP] OTN topology YANG model (draft… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [Teas] [CCAMP] OTN topology YANG model (draft… Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)
- Re: [Teas] IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Mee… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Mee… Zhangxian (Xian)