Hi Chris, From: Chris Bowers <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 2:05 PM To: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> Cc: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Chris Bowers <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Routing WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model
Yingzhen, I think the following changes in naming are clearer: set-import-level -> set-export-level import-level -> export-level IS-IS is the protocol where it ultimately is advertised so it is imported here and NOT from the protocol from which is is exported. Between import and export, the former is clearly cleaner. I understand that the model supports both import and export policies. However, as far as I can tell, 'isis-level-2' should never be used in an import policy, only an export policy. Instead, 'isis-level-2-type' would be used in an import policy. The name change that I propose above makes this clear. Acee's proposal to use 'set-level' for isis-level-2 leaves this unclear. See above. set-isis-level is probably better than set-level. In any case, we aren’t going to change as you suggest. Thanks, Acee Thanks, Chris On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:08 AM Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Acee and Chris, I will change the name in next revision with other comments. Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 4:21 PM To: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model Hi Yingzhen, Meant to reply earlier. Thanks for responding. From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model Resent-From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Xufeng Liu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM Hi Chris, Thanks for the review and proposed examples, really appreciate. I’ve uploaded a new version of the draft and included the example to demonstrate route redistribution between ospf and isis. I didn’t include the one to install ospf routes to RIB considering this is default behavior unless you specify a policy to limit the ospf routes installation. Regarding the name, the model supports both import and export modes, so I didn’t want to simply change the name to “set-export-level”, but open to suggestions. The model also provides a grouping “apply-policy-group” that can be used by routing protocols for route redistributions, and there are descriptions about it in Section 6. I Think we should change it to set-isis-level or simply set-level. Thanks, Acee Thanks, Yingzhen From: Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:23 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: proposed example text and question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model Resent-From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:23 PM I would like to propose adding the following example to the text of draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model to better illustrate how the model will work in practice with routing policies involving IGPs. The proposed text is shown below. I think that the example below also illustrates a problem with the naming of what is currently called "import-level" and "set-import-level". In the example, the export policy called "export-all-OSPF-prefixes-into-ISIS-level-2" uses the "set-import-level" action. As far as I can tell, it only makes sense to use "set-import-level" in an export policy, and not in an import policy. If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to call it "set-export-level"? =========== Proposed text for new IGP routing policy example: This example illustrates the import and export policies corresponding to the following scenario. All routes that are learned via OSPF advertisements should get installed in the RIB. All routes in the RIB that have been learned from OSPF advertisements corresponding to OSPF intra-area and inter-area route types should get advertised into ISIS level 2 advertisements. <policy-definitions> <policy-definition> <name>import-all-OSPF</name> <statements> <statement> <name>term-0</name> <conditions> <match-prefix-set> <prefix-set>all-prefixes</prefix-set> </match-prefix-set> </conditions> <actions> <policy-result>accept-route</policy-result> </actions> </statement> </statements> </policy-definition> <policy-definition> <name>export-all-OSPF-prefixes-into-ISIS-level-2</name> <statements> <statement> <name>term-0</name> <conditions> <match-prefix-set> <prefix-set>all-prefixes</prefix-set> </match-prefix-set> <match-route-type> <proto-route-type>ospf-internal-type</proto-route-type> </match-route-type> </conditions> <actions> <set-import-level> <import-level>isis-level-2</import-level> </set-import-level> <policy-result>accept-route</policy-result> </actions> </statement> </statements> </policy-definition> </policy-definitions> ========== Thanks, Chris _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
