Hi all,
I find some conflicting rules about interface-to-VRF binding between RFC8529
and draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-09.txt.
Thanks Acee for reminding me to check the changes in the new version of these
documents.
And I update the original mail as below after the checking:
RULE1: [RFC8529] Section 3.2 says that:
The bind-network-instance-name leaf provides the association between an
interface and its associated NI (e.g., VRF or VSI).
RULE2: [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07] Section 3.3 says that:
augment
/ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type/l2vpn:l2vpn:
+--rw evpn-instance? evpn-instance-ref
and [draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-09.txt] Section 3.6.3 says that:
Each entry in the endpoint list, may hold AC, PW or redundancy-grp
references. The core aspect of endpoint container is its flexible
personality based on what user decides to include in it. It is
future-proofed with possible extensions that can be included in the
endpoint container such as Integrated Route Bridging (IRB), PW
Headend, Virtual Switch Instance, etc.
According to the RULE1, The bind-network-instance-name leaf provides the
association between an interface and its associated MAC-VRF or IP-VRF.
According to the RULE2, IRB/AC interface is associated to it's EVPN MAC-VRF via
the "end-point" entry.
So I have the follow two questions:
Question 1: How should I bind an AC to it's EVPN MAC-VRF according to these
drafts?
Question 2: How should I bind an IRB interface to it's EVPN MAC-VRF and EVPN
IP-VRF according to these drafts?
For Question 1, my understanding is as below:
I should follow the RULE2 to bind an AC to it's associated EVPN MAC-VRF.
The RULE1 doesn't work for L2VPN ACs,
because if the RULE1 is applied to the association between AC and its
associated MAC-VRF,
It should be applied to the association between IRB interface and its
associated MAC-VRF too.
But obviously the RULE1 should be applied to the association between IRB
interface and its associated IP-VRF.
Consequently, for Question 2, my understanding is as below:
I should follow the RULE1 to bind an IRB to it's associated EVPN IP-VRF.
I should follow the RULE2 to bind an IRB to it's associated EVPN MAC-VRF.
Is my understanding correct?
Best Regards,
Bob
The Oringinal Mail
发件人：AceeLindem(acee) <a...@cisco.com>
收件人：wang.yub...@zte.com.cn;bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>;hs...@ciena.com
<hs...@ciena.com>;Patrice Brissette(pbrisset)
<pbris...@cisco.com>;ichen.i...@outlook.com
<ichen.i...@outlook.com>;ihuss...@infinera.com
<ihuss...@infinera.com>;kisho...@juniper.net
<kisho...@juniper.net>;lber...@labn.net <lber...@labn.net>;cho...@chopps.org
<cho...@chopps.org>;ivand...@gmail.com
<ivand...@gmail.com>;xufeng_...@jabil.com
<xufeng_...@jabil.com>;ing-wher_c...@jabil.com
<ing-wher_c...@jabil.com>;jorge.raba...@nokia.com <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>;Ali
Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>;
日 期 ：2019年04月23日 23:53
主 题 ：Re: [BESS] Conflicting rules among the Yang models on the
associationbetween IRB/AC interface and IP-VRF/MAC-VRF instance.
Bob,
From: "wang.yub...@zte.com.cn" <wang.yub...@zte.com.cn>
Date: Monday, April 22, 2019 at 10:52 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "hs...@ciena.com" <hs...@ciena.com>,
"Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbris...@cisco.com>, "ichen.i...@outlook.com"
<ichen.i...@outlook.com>, Iftekhar Hussain <ihuss...@infinera.com>,
"kisho...@juniper.net" <kisho...@juniper.net>, "lber...@labn.net"
<lber...@labn.net>, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>, Acee Lindem
<a...@cisco.com>, Dean Bogdanovic <ivand...@gmail.com>, "xufeng_...@jabil.com"
<xufeng_...@jabil.com>, Helen Chen <ing-wher_c...@jabil.com>, "Rabadan, Jorge
(Nokia - US)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
<saja...@cisco.com>
Subject: [BESS] Conflicting rules among the Yang models on the association
between IRB/AC interface and IP-VRF/MAC-VRF instance.
Hi all,
I find some conflicting rules about interface-to-VRF binding between
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-12 and draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-09.txt.
Not that the NI model has been published as RFC 8529.
Thanks,
Acee
It is as below:
RULE1: [NI-model] Section 3.2 says that:
The bind-network-instance-name leaf provides the association between an
interface and its associated NI (e.g., VRF or VSI).
RULE2: [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-06] Section 3.3 says that:
augment
/ni:network-instances/ni:network-instance/ni:ni-type/l2vpn:l2vpn:
+--rw evpn-instance? evpn-instance-ref
and [draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-09.txt] Section 3.6.3 says that:
Each entry in the endpoint list, may hold AC, PW or redundancy-grp
references. The core aspect of endpoint container is its flexible
personality based on what user decides to include in it. It is
future-proofed with possible extensions that can be included in the
endpoint container such as Integrated Route Bridging (IRB), PW
Headend, Virtual Switch Instance, etc.
According to the RULE1, The bind-network-instance-name leaf provides the
association between an interface and its associated MAC-VRF or IP-VRF.
According to the RULE2, IRB/AC interface is associated to it's EVPN MAC-VRF via
the "end-point" entry.
So I have the follow two questions:
Question 1: How should I bind an AC to it's EVPN MAC-VRF according to these
drafts?
Question 2: How should I bind an IRB interface to it's EVPN MAC-VRF and EVPN
IP-VRF according to these drafts?
For Question 1, my understanding is as below:
I should follow the RULE2 to bind an AC to it's associated EVPN MAC-VRF.
The RULE1 doesn't work for L2VPN ACs,
because if the RULE1 is applied to the association between AC and its
associated MAC-VRF,
It should be applied to the association between IRB interface and its
associated MAC-VRF too.
But obviously the RULE1 should be applied to the association between IRB
interface and its associated IP-VRF.
Consequently, for Question 2, my understanding is as below:
I should follow the RULE1 to bind an IRB to it's associated EVPN IP-VRF.
I should follow the RULE2 to bind an IRB to it's associated EVPN MAC-VRF.
Is my understanding correct?
Best Regards
Bob_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
