Hi Xefeng, From: Xufeng Liu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:44 AM To: Cisco Employee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 'Giles Heron' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "'Shah, Himanshu'" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module
Hi Dhanendra, More below. Thanks, - Xufeng From: Dhanendra Jain (dhjain) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:27 PM To: Xufeng Liu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'Jeff Tantsura' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'Giles Heron' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 'Shah, Himanshu' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Hi Xufeng, inline.. From: Xufeng Liu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, February 13, 2017 at 7:21 AM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 'Jeff Tantsura' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 'Giles Heron' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Cisco Employee <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "'Shah, Himanshu'" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module In EVPN, as Patrice described, the structure is: | +--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 In L2VPN, the structure is: +--ro bgp-auto-discovery | +--ro route-distinguisher? string | +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value] | | +--ro rt-value string | | +--ro rt-type bgp-rt-type In L3VPN, the current structure is: +--rw route-distinguisher | +--rw config | | +--rw rd? string +--rw ipv4 | +--rw unicast | +--rw route-targets | | +--rw config | | | +--rw rts* [rt] | | | | +--rw rt string | | | | +--rw rt-type? Enumeration +--rw ipv6 +--rw unicast +--rw route-targets | +--rw config | | +--rw rts* [rt] | | | +--rw rt string | | | +--rw rt-type? enumeration Hi Dhanendra and All, Are we ok to move the route targets section out of the AF specific location to where RD is specified? If so, we can define the following common grouping: Dhjain> I think one way to handle this is to have separate common groupings for RD and RT. So that we can retain AF level granularity for RT grouping for import/export rules. [Xufeng] Yes. That will be the approach below, to have separate an RT grouping. The question is: do we need/want to retain the AF level granularity for RT rules? Dhjain> Yes, because we have to configure Safi specific import/export rules separately with an L3 instance. In the case of L2 the L2vpn and EVPN instances are separate from the top itself, having separate RD/RT. Thanks, Dhanendra. | +--ro route-distinguisher? string | +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value] | | +--ro rt-value string | | +--ro rt-type bgp-rt-type Otherwise, we can only define a grouping without the RD: | +--ro vpn-target* [rt-value] | | +--ro rt-value string | | +--ro rt-type bgp-rt-type Thanks, - Xufeng From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 12:46 PM To: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Giles Heron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Dhanendra Jain (dhjain) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Shah, Himanshu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Given that there is no paucity of authors and contributors on these three BESS YANG models, I’d hope that one of them could provide a suggested common grouping. For now, I’ve added the route-target-type type on which there seems to be consensus. Thanks, Acee From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:23 AM To: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Giles Heron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Himanshu Shah <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Hi Folks, Same here. Can we do something about it? And agree, all 3 VPN models should have the same commonality. Regards, Patrice Brissette From: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:43 PM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Giles Heron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Patrice Brissette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Shah, Himanshu" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module I’d prefer common grouping indraft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types and references from any other model using it Cheers, Jeff From: BESS <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 08:42 To: Giles Heron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Shah, Himanshu" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module Hi Giles, I will add the route-target-type type (enum of import, export, both) but for a general grouping, it appears there are some discrepancies between the 3 models. Assuming the types: route-discriminator, route-target, and route-target-type, can you provide a consensus grouping that all the models would use? Thanks, Acee From: Giles Heron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Himanshu Shah <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module 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]<mailto:[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 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 _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
