----- Original Message -----
From: "Xufeng Liu" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:47 PM
Hi Tom,
Thanks for checking on this. Agree that we need to fix the description
text. What about the following?
te-node-id:
A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology.
The
identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in the dotted-quad
notation. This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address described
in
Section 2.4.1 of [RFC3630], the TE Router ID described in Section 3 of
[RFC6827], the Traffic Engineering Router ID described in Section 4.3 of
[RFC5305], or the TE Router ID described in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC6119].
The
reachability of such a TE node MAY be achieved by a mechanism such as
Section 6.2 of [RFC6827].
Or, would you give a suggestion?
<tp>
Looks good.
One query I cannot answer; should
RFC5786 Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF
TE Extensions. R. Aggarwal, K. Kompella. March 2010
be there as well? On the face of it, it looks relevant and would appear
to meet a need but I note its absence from ospf-yang; I do not know how
widely it is implemented or used. This RFC is updated by RFC6827.
Tom Petch
Thanks,
- Xufeng
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Xufeng Liu" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
>
>
> Hi Acee, Tom, and All,
>
> Several authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types had a brief
discussion
> on
> this topic. Our take on the te-node-id and te-router-id is:
>
> - In TEAS, the te-node-id specified in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types
has
> a
> wider use scope than IP MPLS TE. The system may or may not run OSPF
TE,
> and
> may not use IPv4. The 32-bit ID number is used only for uniquely
> identifying the TE node, and it may or may not be a routable address.
> - When RFC3630 is implemented, it is ok to map a routable IPv4 address
> (such as the address of loopbak0) to the te-node-id, but it is not
> required.
> - We intentionally use the term "te-node-id" instead of "te-router-id"
> to
> convey the concept that this ID is on a TE node, which may or may or
be
> a
> router.
> - We will clarify the description to say that "This attribute is MAY
be
> mapped to TE Router ID in [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], and
> [RFC6119]."
>
> <tp>
>
> Xufeng
>
> Thanks for the clarification - I understand better now.
>
> However, I think that your proposed text is not quite right. RFC5329
> does not defined a TE Router ID - in fact, I think that that concept
is
> alien to OSPF. OSPF has a 32 bit number that is the Router ID with no
> requirement for that to be a routable address; which is why (IMHO)
> RFC5329 defines a
> Router IPv6 Address TLV
> which carries a routable address (which can meet the needs of TE).
>
> Likewise, RFC3630, for OSPFv2, does not have the concept of a TE
Router
> ID; rather, it has a
> Router Address TLV
> which specifies a stable IP address (which can meet the needs of TE).
>
> And then there is RFC5786 which defines, for OSPF, the
> Node Attribute TLV
> with sub-TLV for
> Node IPv4 Local Address
> Node IPv6 Local Address
> allowing for multiple TE addresses for different traffic types.
>
> I grant you that RFC6119 defines a
> TE Router ID
> but the concept is alien to OSPF (IMHO).
>
> So, if you want to use the term
> TE Router ID
> then I think that you will need to explain how that maps onto the
> terminology of the existing OSPF RFC.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:38 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> > I think the only action here is for the authors of
> > draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types to fix their te-node-id definition. As
> for
> > the OSPF Router ID and OSPF/ISIS TE Router IDs we can't change the
> decades
> > old definitions to achieve uniformity.
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > On 12/5/18, 11:12 AM, "tom petch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:57 PM
> >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > I think that having a different router-id configured per
> protocol is
> > a
> > matter of deployment. I don't think that we can impose anything
in
> this
> > area. There are use cases where it is good to have separate
> router-ids
> > per protocol or instances of a protocol. For instance, when a
> router is
> > part of multiple "administrative domains", it is worth having
> separate
> > router-ids per admin domain.
> > >
> > > However I have a concern about the router-id or te-node-id
> bound to
> > a
> > 32 bits number only. How do we do in a pure IPv6 network ?
> >
> > Stephane
> >
> > I am used to configuring a router-id as a 32-bit number with no
> > requirement for that to be an address that can be accessed over
> the
> > internet (so I have always found the idea of 'loopback0'
> unfortunate).
> > Yes, the router needs to be addressable, but merging that
concept
> with
> > a
> > router id has always seemed to me unfortunate because they are
two
> > separate concepts. (In fact, I would regard good practice as
> giving a
> > router multiple addresses for different functions, so that e.g.
> syslog
> > can be separated from SNMP or FTP).
> >
> > Thus I have no problem with a 32-bit router-id in an IPv6
network.
> > Indeed, RFC5329 defines a 32-bit router-id in an OSPFv3
> > Intra-Area-TE-LSA. It is the Router IPv6 Address TLV that
carries
> the
> > 128-bit address.
> >
> > When ospf-yang says
> > container te-rid {
> > if-feature te-rid;
> > description "Stable OSPF Router IP Address used for
> Traffic
> > Engineering (TE)";
> > leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address;
> description
> > "Explicitly configure the TE IPv4 Router ID.";
> > }
> > leaf ipv6-router-id {
> > type inet:ipv6-address;
> > description "Explicitly configure the TE IPv6
Router
> ID.";
> >
> > then that is when I wonder what is going on. That looks to me
> like
> > configuring
> > Router IPv6 Address TLV
> > not the router id.
> >
> > Meanwhile, te-yang-te-types has
> >
> > te-node-id:
> > A type representing the identifier for a node in a
topology.
> The
> > identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in
the
> > dotted-quad notation. This attribute is mapped to Router
ID
> in
> > [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], and [RFC6119].
> >
> > Well, I disagree with their choice of YANG type but agree that
it
> is
> > 32-bit and not 128.
> >
> > Tom Petch.
> >
> > > Brgds,
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tom petch [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:14
> > > To: Acee Lindem (acee); LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS;
> [email protected];
> > [email protected];
> [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
> > >
> > > Acee
> > >
> > > (Top-posting because the indentation usually fails)
> > >
> > > On the TEAS te-types, I had a quick look at where
> > > typedef te-node-id
> > > is used and the answer is lots of places, because it is part
of
> > > grouping explicit-route-hop {
> > > description "The explicit route subobject grouping";
> > > choice type {
> > > description "The explicit route subobject type";
> > > case num-unnum-hop {
> > > container num-unnum-hop {
> > > leaf node-id {
> > > type te-types:te-node-id;
> > > description "The identifier of a node in the TE
> > > topology.";
> > > and YANG uses of that grouping are many, in several WGs;
> however,
> > > because it is a grouping, then the impact of changing the type
> should
> > be
> > > minimal at least in terms of the I-Ds.
> > >
> > > On the multiple router definitions, my research of the IETF
memo
> only
> > > came up with the two cited RFC which, to me, say that you
should
> use
> > an
> > > existing router-id if there is one.
> > >
> > > I did look at the documentation of A Major Router Manufacturer
> and
> > while
> > > they did not give any advice, the default for a te router-id
was
> > > loopback0
> > > while the default for a more general router-id, one without
te,
> was
> > > loopback0
> > > which gives me the message, you can make them different but
> SHOULD
> > NOT
> > > (in IETF terminology).
> > >
> > > So while I agree that the two lsr modules should allow
> per-protocol
> > > configuration, I think that it should carry a health warning
in
> the
> > body
> > > of the I-D that this is not a good idea (I struggle to think
of
> when
> > it
> > > would be a good idea, to use three separate identifiers for,
> say, BGP
> > > and the two lsr protocols).
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]>
> > > To: "tom petch" <[email protected]>;
> > <[email protected]>;
> > > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 7:46 PM
> > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > Let me try to explain.
> > > >
> > > > On 12/4/18, 12:44 PM, "tom petch" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The router id in this I-D confuse me.
> > > >
> > > > RFC8294 defines
> > > > typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad;
> > > >
> > > > Some implementations configure a global router-id while
others
> only
> > > allow it at the control-plane-protocol level. This is why we
> have it
> > in
> > > both places.
> > > >
> > > > ospf-yang defines
> > > > leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address;
> > > >
> > > > For better or worse, OSPF has a separate TE address that is
> > routable
> > > and referred to as the TE router-id. You'll note that this is
> part of
> > > the te-rid container in both the OSPF and IS-IS YANG models.
We
> could
> > > add "-te-" to the leaves to avoid confusion.
> > > >
> > > > draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types defines
> > > > typedef te-node-id { type yang:dotted-quad;
> > > > ... This attribute is mapped to Router ID ....
> > > >
> > > > This is just wrong. It is a routable address in the IGP TE
> > extensions.
> > > I've copied the draft authors.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Acee Lindem
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Three different YANG types for a router id.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > Behind this, ospf-yang gives as references for a router
te
> id
> > > > RFC3630(V2) and RFC5329(V3). Reading these, my take is
> that a
> > > router id
> > > > is needed for te but that the existing id should be used
> where
> > > possible
> > > > i.e. creating an additional identifier for the same
> instance of
> > > the same
> > > > entity is A Bad Thing (which sounds like a good general
> > > principle).
> > > > With two objects in the lsr protocols, that would appear
> to
> > make
> > > at
> > > > least three identifiers for the same instance of the
same
> > entity.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > I copy Stephane on this since the same issues apply to
the
> > other
> > > lsr
> > > > protocol, mutatis mutandi.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Petch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
> > _________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
> informations
> > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si
> vous
> > avez
> > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes.
Les
> > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
altere,
> > deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> > >
> > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> > privileged information that may be protected by law;
> > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without
> authorisation.
> > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the
> sender
> > and
> > delete this message and its attachments.
> > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages
that
> have
> > been modified, changed or falsified.
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
