Hi Acee,

In general seems that for any BGP VPN (L2 or L3) you have an RD plus a list of 
RTs (which can be import, export or both) - so I’d prefer that to be defined in 
a shared grouping (more or less as per the structure Patrice gave below) than 
to force each model to redefine it.

Giles

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 14:51, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Patrice – we are working fervently on a common IETF routing types model. 
> We have both route-target and router-distinguisher types defined there. The 
> work is being done in the Routing WG. Our intension is to accelerate 
> standardization so it doesn’t hold up standardization of the importing 
> modules. Please comment as to whether you think this meets BESS requirements. 
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00.txt 
> <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00.txt>
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> P.S. We plan an update next week but the RD and RT definitions have not 
> changed. 
> 
> 
> 
> From: BESS <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf 
> of "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM
> To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, 
> Himanshu Shah <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
> 
> Folks,
>  
> As part of EVPN, L2VPn and L3VPN Yang model, there is a “module” common to 
> all 3 Yang models.
>  
>       |     +--rw bgp-parameters
>       |     |  +--rw common
>       |     |     +--rw rd-rt* [route-distinguisher]
>       |     |        +--rw route-distinguisher    string
>       |     |        +--rw vpn-target* [rt-value]
>       |     |           +--rw rt-value    string
>       |     |           +--rw rt-type     bgp-rt-type
>  
>  
> It will be interesting to create a common BGP parameter Yang module as shown 
> above. I think it just makes sense.
> However, there is a minor challenge; that module require a home (a draft).
> I’m looking for feedback about the best place/draft for such a module.
>  
> Thanks for your help.
> Regards,
> Patrice Brissette
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess 
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to