Re: [Teas] Types within ietf-te-path-computation and ietf-te-types Modules

Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> Wed, 16 January 2019 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.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 24291130E0A for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:49:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_FAIL=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 6CaryRlkAGFH for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail-ext.rd.orange.com (p-mail-ext.rd.orange.com [161.106.1.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56504130DF1 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail-ext.rd.orange.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 630BA5615A7; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:48:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from p-mail-int.rd.francetelecom.fr (p-mail-int.rd.francetelecom.fr [10.192.117.12]) by p-mail-ext.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1D55615A5; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:48:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from p-mail-int.rd.francetelecom.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 19F68181A07; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:48:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.193.71.36] (l-at13891.rd.francetelecom.fr [10.193.71.36]) by p-mail-int.rd.francetelecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1E81819C9; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:48:52 +0100 (CET)
From: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
To: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: "esther.lerouzic@orange.com" <esther.lerouzic@orange.com>, "ahmed.triki@orange.com" <ahmed.triki@orange.com>
References: <38a2168c-b23d-0324-c058-72ce000a84b4@orange.com> <etPan.5c3dd203.5c1b45c5.2232@localhost> <etPan.5c3dead0.76c532e5.48f3@localhost>
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <216f71fd-6cc0-ce1a-7da8-0adc4b38da98@orange.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:48:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <etPan.5c3dead0.76c532e5.48f3@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-PMX-Version: 6.4.6.2792898, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2019.1.16.93916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.56.0, AntiVirus-Data: 2019.1.3.5560002
X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report=' TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, MULTIPLE_RCPTS 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODY_SIZE_4000_4999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, IN_REP_TO 0, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS 0, MSG_THREAD 0, MULTIPLE_REAL_RCPTS 0, REFERENCES 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CC_NAME 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __DQ_NEG_HEUR 0, __DQ_NEG_IP 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FROM_DOMAIN_IN_ANY_CC1 0, __FROM_DOMAIN_IN_RCPT 0, __HAS_CC_HDR 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT 0, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __SUBJ_REPLY 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT2 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NOT_IMG 0, __URI_NS , __URI_NS_SERVFAIL , __URI_WITHOUT_PATH 0, __URI_WITH_PATH 0, __USER_AGENT 0'
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Bgx6SsxsspV2fA3GErzVFH6U6DA>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Types within ietf-te-path-computation and ietf-te-types Modules
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:49:14 -0000

Hi Igor,

A.1. I'm glad we agree on using the "te-node-id" type in both places.

A.2. I am not questioning the fact that an ID does not need to be a
routable address; I am just saying that there are (Standard Track) RFCs
that defines 128-bit TE Router IDs (e.g., RFC 6119 section 4.1, as
mentioned below) and the definition of "te-node-id" imported from
"te-types" cannot overlook that (this could be another thread directed
to the authors of ietf-te-types).

B.1. I agree that a tunnel TP is different from a link TP; I do not
suggest to use the same name on these leaves. However, both should point
to the "te-tp-id" space (instead of binary). If you believe there are
some missing encodings in "te-tp-id", what are they?

B.2. It is fine to have 2 different types such as "te-node-id" and
"te-tp-id" (as within the RO part in the tree below), we are in sync on
that.

Cheers,

Julien


On 15/01/2019 15:12, Igor Bryskin wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> Two more comments from me and Italo:
> 1.To <http://1.To> align src/dst type with the node-id type is a good
> idea;
> 2. As widely discussed, TE node id, generally speaking, is not
> (pingable) IP address, nor it is a routing protocol  router ID , just
> a number that identifys node uniquely in the TE topology the node
> belongs to, hence uint32 is sufficient.
>
> Cheers,
> Igor
> *From:*Igor Bryskin
> *Date:*2019-01-15 07:27:22
>
> Hi Julien,
>
> 2 comments:
> 1.src (dst)-tp-id below means src/dst tunnel termination point, which
> is different from flink-tp-id below, which menas link termination
> point, i.e. place where a numbered/unnumbered link is terminated on a
> node;
> 2. We discussed a lot and believe that node-id sub-object should be
> different from numbered link-id sub-object ( as per current RSVP and
> PCEP) because there are use cases where one needs to distinguish node
> from link in ERO without necessarily looking into topology infotmation.
>
> Cheers,
> Igor
> *From:*Julien Meuric
> *Date:*2019-01-15 04:05:43
>
> Hi all,
>
> A colleague of mine has started to implement some pieces of the
> ietf-te-path-computation Yang module. He has already bumped into a
> couple of inconsistencies that are worth sharing.
>
> In this module, we have:
>
> +---- path-request* [request-id]
> |  +---- ...
> |  +---- source?                   inet:ip-address
> |  +---- destination?              inet:ip-address
> |  +---- src-tp-id?                binary
> |  +---- dst-tp-id?                binary
> |  +---- ...
> |  +---- explicit-route-objects
> |  |  +---- route-object-exclude-always* [index]
> |  |  |  +---- index            uint32
> |  |  |  +---- (type)?
> |  |  |     +--:(num-unnum-hop)
> |  |  |     |  +---- num-unnum-hop
> |  |  |     |     +---- node-id?      te-types:te-node-id
> |  |  |     |     +---- link-tp-id?   te-types:te-tp-id
> |  |  |     |     +---- ...
>
> In the above, the types associated to source/destination and x-tp-id are
> different between the request level and the RO level. This leads us to 2
> fixes to consider on this document:
> - src-tp-id/dst-tp-id should mimic link-tp-id and reuse te-tp-id instead
> of binary;
> - source/destination and node-id should share a common type (any reason
> they would not?).
>
> What is more, te-node-id is currently defined in ietf-te-types as 32-bit
> only, whereas the references it mentions include 128-bit format; e.g.
> RFC 6119 (section 3.2.1.) says: "it is useful to have a stable IPv6
> address identifying a TE node. The IPv6 TE Router ID TLV is defined in
> Section 4.1."
> Fixing te-types:te-node-id is a prerequisite to fully solve the 2nd
> issue above.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Julien, et al.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas