Re: [bess] A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

2019-03-13 Thread Alexander Vainshtein 
Patrice,
Unfortunately I will not be attending the IETF meeting in Prague.
But I can be reached via Skype (sasha.vainshtein) if you want to discuss things.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 11:27 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Yu Tianpeng 

Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky 
; Yechiel Rosengarten 
; Ron Sdayoor 
Subject: Re: A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

Guys,

Thanks a lot for your comments. We will have a sit down in Prague to discuss 
them.
Ping me if you will be around.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 04:05
To: Yu Tianpeng mailto:yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org" 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org>>,
 "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
Michael Gorokhovsky 
mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>, 
Yechiel Rosengarten 
mailto:yechiel.rosengar...@ecitele.com>>, Ron 
Sdayoor mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>
Subject: RE: A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
Resent-From: mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: Patrice Brissette mailto:pbris...@cisco.com>>, 
mailto:hs...@ciena.com>>, 
mailto:ihuss...@infinera.com>>, 
mailto:kisho...@juniper.net>>, 
mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 04:05

Tim,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
I have indeed missed the ingress-replication  and p2mp-replication leaves at 
the top of the EVPN YANG tree. But I do not see how it helps to answer my 
original questions (in addition to being misplaced as you have noticed).

Seems we are in sync with regard to this issue.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Yu Tianpeng mailto:yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:52 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org; 
bess@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky 
mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>; 
Yechiel Rosengarten 
mailto:yechiel.rosengar...@ecitele.com>>; Ron 
Sdayoor mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>
Subject: Re: A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

Hi Sasha,
If you read the beginning of even yang, it has a common leaf which indicating 
it is IR or P2MP. But it is globally not per EVI.
So actually I also have a comment here I may forgot to mention in previous 
email is that this common leaf should be per EVI basis not globally.
If this info should be included in route leaf, the common leaf actually can be 
deleted I believe.
So basically I support what you said.

Hi author,
Thanks for the new version which fixes  a lot.
But I still have some concerns on the current version.
I will try put major ones down later.

Here just quick query on the usage of counter32 in statistics, isn't it very 
likely to get full in short time?  If you check interface-yang it always use 
counter64. If I calculate correctly, with 1mbps traffic counter32 will rotate 
in about 1 hour. Or I miss sth?

Thanks in advance.
Regards
Tim


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 06:47 Alexander Vainshtein, 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> 
wrote:
Hi all,
I am now reading the draft, and I see that it is a substantial improvement over 
the earlier versions.

At the same time I have a question regarding the definition of Type 3 
(Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag) EVPN route in this (and previous) versions.

The YANG definition of this route  runs as following:

 list inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route {
   uses route-rd-rt-grp;
   leaf originator-ip-prefix {
 type inet:ip-prefix;
 description "originator-ip-prefix";
   }
   list path {
 uses next-hop-label-grp;
 uses path-detail-grp;
 description "path";
   }
   description "inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route";


This definition matches the definition of the NRLI of this route in Section 7.3 
of RFC 7432. But it seems to miss the requirement (stated in Section 11.2 of 
RFC 7432) that this route MUST carry an PMSI Tunnel Type Attribute (a.k.a. PTA) 
as defined in RFC 6514.

The draft also defines a Boolean attribute underlay-multicast of an EVPN 
ins

Re: [bess] A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

2019-03-13 Thread Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) 
Guys,

Thanks a lot for your comments. We will have a sit down in Prague to discuss 
them.
Ping me if you will be around.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: Alexander Vainshtein 
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 04:05
To: Yu Tianpeng 
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org" , 
"bess@ietf.org" , Michael Gorokhovsky 
, Yechiel Rosengarten 
, Ron Sdayoor 
Subject: RE: A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Patrice Brissette , , 
, , 
Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 04:05

Tim,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
I have indeed missed the ingress-replication  and p2mp-replication leaves at 
the top of the EVPN YANG tree. But I do not see how it helps to answer my 
original questions (in addition to being misplaced as you have noticed).

Seems we are in sync with regard to this issue.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Yu Tianpeng 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:52 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky 
; Yechiel Rosengarten 
; Ron Sdayoor 
Subject: Re: A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

Hi Sasha,
If you read the beginning of even yang, it has a common leaf which indicating 
it is IR or P2MP. But it is globally not per EVI.
So actually I also have a comment here I may forgot to mention in previous 
email is that this common leaf should be per EVI basis not globally.
If this info should be included in route leaf, the common leaf actually can be 
deleted I believe.
So basically I support what you said.

Hi author,
Thanks for the new version which fixes  a lot.
But I still have some concerns on the current version.
I will try put major ones down later.

Here just quick query on the usage of counter32 in statistics, isn't it very 
likely to get full in short time?  If you check interface-yang it always use 
counter64. If I calculate correctly, with 1mbps traffic counter32 will rotate 
in about 1 hour. Or I miss sth?

Thanks in advance.
Regards
Tim


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 06:47 Alexander Vainshtein, 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> 
wrote:
Hi all,
I am now reading the draft, and I see that it is a substantial improvement over 
the earlier versions.

At the same time I have a question regarding the definition of Type 3 
(Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag) EVPN route in this (and previous) versions.

The YANG definition of this route  runs as following:

 list inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route {
   uses route-rd-rt-grp;
   leaf originator-ip-prefix {
 type inet:ip-prefix;
 description "originator-ip-prefix";
   }
   list path {
 uses next-hop-label-grp;
 uses path-detail-grp;
 description "path";
   }
   description "inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route";


This definition matches the definition of the NRLI of this route in Section 7.3 
of RFC 7432. But it seems to miss the requirement (stated in Section 11.2 of 
RFC 7432) that this route MUST carry an PMSI Tunnel Type Attribute (a.k.a. PTA) 
as defined in RFC 6514.

The draft also defines a Boolean attribute underlay-multicast of an EVPN 
instance, but it does not explain what this means and how it is used. My guess 
)FWIW) is that this attribute differentiates between EVPN instances that use 
ingress replication and EVPN instances that use P2MP LSPs to deliver BUM 
traffic. But it does not help to identify specific  technology used for setting 
up P2MP LSPs, and does not allow the user to see the labels advertised in the 
PTA.

Did I miss something substantial here?

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

-Original Message-
From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:21 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title   : Yang Data Model for EVPN
Authors : Patrice Brissette
  Himanshu Shah
  Iftekar Hussain
  Kishore Tiruveedhula
  Jorg

Re: [bess] A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

2019-03-13 Thread Alexander Vainshtein 
Tim,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
I have indeed missed the ingress-replication  and p2mp-replication leaves at 
the top of the EVPN YANG tree. But I do not see how it helps to answer my 
original questions (in addition to being misplaced as you have noticed).

Seems we are in sync with regard to this issue.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Yu Tianpeng 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:52 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky 
; Yechiel Rosengarten 
; Ron Sdayoor 
Subject: Re: A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

Hi Sasha,
If you read the beginning of even yang, it has a common leaf which indicating 
it is IR or P2MP. But it is globally not per EVI.
So actually I also have a comment here I may forgot to mention in previous 
email is that this common leaf should be per EVI basis not globally.
If this info should be included in route leaf, the common leaf actually can be 
deleted I believe.
So basically I support what you said.

Hi author,
Thanks for the new version which fixes  a lot.
But I still have some concerns on the current version.
I will try put major ones down later.

Here just quick query on the usage of counter32 in statistics, isn't it very 
likely to get full in short time?  If you check interface-yang it always use 
counter64. If I calculate correctly, with 1mbps traffic counter32 will rotate 
in about 1 hour. Or I miss sth?

Thanks in advance.
Regards
Tim


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 06:47 Alexander Vainshtein, 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> 
wrote:
Hi all,
I am now reading the draft, and I see that it is a substantial improvement over 
the earlier versions.

At the same time I have a question regarding the definition of Type 3 
(Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag) EVPN route in this (and previous) versions.

The YANG definition of this route  runs as following:

 list inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route {
   uses route-rd-rt-grp;
   leaf originator-ip-prefix {
 type inet:ip-prefix;
 description "originator-ip-prefix";
   }
   list path {
 uses next-hop-label-grp;
 uses path-detail-grp;
 description "path";
   }
   description "inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route";


This definition matches the definition of the NRLI of this route in Section 7.3 
of RFC 7432. But it seems to miss the requirement (stated in Section 11.2 of 
RFC 7432) that this route MUST carry an PMSI Tunnel Type Attribute (a.k.a. PTA) 
as defined in RFC 6514.

The draft also defines a Boolean attribute underlay-multicast of an EVPN 
instance, but it does not explain what this means and how it is used. My guess 
)FWIW) is that this attribute differentiates between EVPN instances that use 
ingress replication and EVPN instances that use P2MP LSPs to deliver BUM 
traffic. But it does not help to identify specific  technology used for setting 
up P2MP LSPs, and does not allow the user to see the labels advertised in the 
PTA.

Did I miss something substantial here?

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

-Original Message-
From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:21 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title   : Yang Data Model for EVPN
Authors : Patrice Brissette
  Himanshu Shah
  Iftekar Hussain
  Kishore Tiruveedhula
  Jorge Rabadan
Filename: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt
Pages   : 28
Date: 2019-03-11

Abstract:
   This document describes a YANG data model for Ethernet VPN services.
   The model is agnostic of the underlay. It apply to MPLS as well as to
   VxLAN encapsulation. The model is also agnostic of the services
   including E-LAN, E-LINE and E-TREE services. This document mainly
   focuses on EVPN and Ethernet-Segment instance framework.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rf

Re: [bess] A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

2019-03-13 Thread Yu Tianpeng 
Hi Sasha,
If you read the beginning of even yang, it has a common leaf which
indicating it is IR or P2MP. But it is globally not per EVI.
So actually I also have a comment here I may forgot to mention in previous
email is that this common leaf should be per EVI basis not globally.
If this info should be included in route leaf, the common leaf actually can
be deleted I believe.
So basically I support what you said.

Hi author,
Thanks for the new version which fixes  a lot.
But I still have some concerns on the current version.
I will try put major ones down later.

Here just quick query on the usage of counter32 in statistics, isn't it
very likely to get full in short time?  If you check interface-yang it
always use counter64. If I calculate correctly, with 1mbps traffic
counter32 will rotate in about 1 hour. Or I miss sth?

Thanks in advance.
Regards
Tim



On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 06:47 Alexander Vainshtein, <
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I am now reading the draft, and I see that it is a substantial improvement
> over the earlier versions.
>
> At the same time I have a question regarding the definition of Type 3
> (Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag) EVPN route in this (and previous)
> versions.
>
> The YANG definition of this route  runs as following:
> 
>  list inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route {
>uses route-rd-rt-grp;
>leaf originator-ip-prefix {
>  type inet:ip-prefix;
>  description "originator-ip-prefix";
>}
>list path {
>  uses next-hop-label-grp;
>  uses path-detail-grp;
>  description "path";
>}
>description "inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route";
> 
>
> This definition matches the definition of the NRLI of this route in
> Section 7.3 of RFC 7432. But it seems to miss the requirement (stated in
> Section 11.2 of RFC 7432) that this route MUST carry an PMSI Tunnel Type
> Attribute (a.k.a. PTA) as defined in RFC 6514.
>
> The draft also defines a Boolean attribute underlay-multicast of an EVPN
> instance, but it does not explain what this means and how it is used. My
> guess )FWIW) is that this attribute differentiates between EVPN instances
> that use ingress replication and EVPN instances that use P2MP LSPs to
> deliver BUM traffic. But it does not help to identify specific  technology
> used for setting up P2MP LSPs, and does not allow the user to see the
> labels advertised in the PTA.
>
> Did I miss something substantial here?
>
> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
> Sasha
>
> Office: +972-39266302
> Cell:  +972-549266302
> Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: BESS  On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:21 PM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.
>
> Title   : Yang Data Model for EVPN
> Authors : Patrice Brissette
>   Himanshu Shah
>   Iftekar Hussain
>   Kishore Tiruveedhula
>   Jorge Rabadan
> Filename: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt
> Pages   : 28
> Date: 2019-03-11
>
> Abstract:
>This document describes a YANG data model for Ethernet VPN services.
>The model is agnostic of the underlay. It apply to MPLS as well as to
>VxLAN encapsulation. The model is also agnostic of the services
>including E-LAN, E-LINE and E-TREE services. This document mainly
>focuses on EVPN and Ethernet-Segment instance framework.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> ___
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
> ___
>
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
> received this
> transmission in error,

[bess] A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

2019-03-12 Thread Alexander Vainshtein 
Hi all,
I am now reading the draft, and I see that it is a substantial improvement over 
the earlier versions.

At the same time I have a question regarding the definition of Type 3 
(Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag) EVPN route in this (and previous) versions.

The YANG definition of this route  runs as following:

 list inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route {
   uses route-rd-rt-grp;
   leaf originator-ip-prefix {
 type inet:ip-prefix;
 description "originator-ip-prefix";
   }
   list path {
 uses next-hop-label-grp;
 uses path-detail-grp;
 description "path";
   }
   description "inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route";


This definition matches the definition of the NRLI of this route in Section 7.3 
of RFC 7432. But it seems to miss the requirement (stated in Section 11.2 of 
RFC 7432) that this route MUST carry an PMSI Tunnel Type Attribute (a.k.a. PTA) 
as defined in RFC 6514.  

The draft also defines a Boolean attribute underlay-multicast of an EVPN 
instance, but it does not explain what this means and how it is used. My guess 
)FWIW) is that this attribute differentiates between EVPN instances that use 
ingress replication and EVPN instances that use P2MP LSPs to deliver BUM 
traffic. But it does not help to identify specific  technology used for setting 
up P2MP LSPs, and does not allow the user to see the labels advertised in the 
PTA. 

Did I miss something substantial here?

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

-Original Message-
From: BESS  On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:21 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title   : Yang Data Model for EVPN
Authors : Patrice Brissette
  Himanshu Shah
  Iftekar Hussain
  Kishore Tiruveedhula
  Jorge Rabadan
Filename: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt
Pages   : 28
Date: 2019-03-11

Abstract:
   This document describes a YANG data model for Ethernet VPN services.
   The model is agnostic of the underlay. It apply to MPLS as well as to
   VxLAN encapsulation. The model is also agnostic of the services
   including E-LAN, E-LINE and E-TREE services. This document mainly
   focuses on EVPN and Ethernet-Segment instance framework.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information 
which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received 
this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then 
delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess