Dean:
Thank you for the review. Just a brief note, In the next version of the document I will gladly provide yang modeling. I will provide more responses in a few hours. Sue From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dean Bogdanovic Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:28 PM To: Susan Hares Cc: <[email protected]>; Edward Crabbe; Alia Atlas; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; Jeffrey Haas; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] information models for your review Susan, Jeff Zhang and I've reviewed info model policy draft. One general comment (and I'm repeating somebody else). Didn't we decide to use YANG for all modeling? I see you use RBNF, so it would be nice to have YANG models in the draft. On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: My co-authors and I wish feedback on the I2RS informational models: 1) Draft-hares-i2rs-info-model-policy Contains: Basic Network Policy IM Policy-Based Routing IM I2RS Local configuration <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-info-model-policy/> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-info-model-policy/ In I2RS Local Config Information Model (I2RS-LC IM) there is a typo and provides quick local access to polies /polies/policies In fig 5, both arrows go from action to condition. I couldn't figure out what is the meaning of use two arrows pointing to same direction. What's the relationship between policy rule and policy? E.g., in the following: The elements of the Policy Rule information model are as follows: o A policy can in turn be part of a hierarchy of policies, building on top of other policies. Each policy is captured in its own level, distinguished via a policy-identity. Is the "policy" a "policy rule" or "policy group"? In the following: o A condition contains a variable and a value and use a match operator, to connect variable with value. An examples of an operator might be a" IP ADDRESS AS RESOLVED BYDNS" or "Set to a member". The example is rather confusing for a match operator. Page 12 typo IP ADDRESS AS RESOLVED /BYDNS/BY DNS What's the difference between priority and precedence? <Policy-Rule_priority> ::= INTEGER (0..250); <Policy-Rule_precedence> :;= INTEGER (0..250); Policy constraints may be exchanged by routing protocols while updating routing information. This can cause the routing protocols to constantly updated information, as the policy might be in direct conflict with routing protocol configuration on another device(s). Why do you want to do it? I'm in favor on policies applying only on the device where policies are explicitly applied. Is section 3.5 complete? For the following: o PRB Default RIB - default forwarding FIB. Is it talking about FIB or RIB? It's conflicting. In figure 7 on page 18, there is no relation between condition and rule, as in fig 5. Shouldn't in all rules the relation between condition and action be the same? If condition met, follow by the action? On page 22, why is the Local Policy Information Model abbreviated with LB IM it got me confused reading below, as I was expecting LP IM. The PBR IM seems incoherent: 4.2. PBR-RIB definition ... Each PBR RIB has the following: o PRB RIB NAME o PBR Route-entry The Route entry in a PRB has the following information: o match field - as in the RIB IM route o order_list PBR route list with each entry having: a) next-hops, b) PBR route attributes, and c) vendor-attributes The PRB route attributes include QOS Attributes as show in the policy list below. It talks about route entries in PBR RIBs, with the same match field as in the regular RIB IM, i.e. route prefixes. It then talks about each entry has ordered list of "PBR route" with next-hops and PRB route and vendor-attributes. So I assume the PBR route attributes are related to policies. However, the rest of the text does not have a coherent connection with that. In fact, the above conflicts with section 4.6. Additionally, is the QOS attributes mentioned above for matching or action? Is QoS specific to PBR? Figure 7 shows QoS action only. It shows "PBR Condition" but that is not elaborated. I can understand that a PBR rule extends a Policy Rule, but I don't understand how "QoS action" and "Forward Action" extend "PBR action". Those two seem to be part of the "PBR action"? What does it mean by "Nexthop Type 'extends' Nexthop Variable"? >From the following in section 4.4: <Policy-Rule_Match_Node_PBR-IM> ::= <IPv4_QoS_Node_Matches> | <IPv6_QoS_Node_Matches> It seems that PBR is all about QoS? Why do we have the following three things that actually are the same? <IPv4_QoS_Node_matches> = <IPv4-QOS_Matches> <IPv4_QoS_Value_matches> = <IPv4-QOS_Matches> What does the following mean? <Policy-Rule_Match_Operator_PBR-IM> ::= [<Longest-prefix>] | [<Exact>] | [(<IPv4-RANGE> <IPv4-Low> <IPv4-High>)] | [(<IPv6-RANGE> <IPv6-Low> <IPv6-High>)] | [(<LENGTH-Range> <LENGTH_Low> <LENGTH_High>)] Jeff and Dean
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
