From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>
Sent: 14 August 2020 23:37
Sorry, had to resend the email with reduced recipients because it was held due
to too many recipients.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On 8/14/20, 2:50 PM, "Yingzhen Qu" <yingzhen...@futurewei.com> wrote:
Hi Tarek,
The proposed change separates IP routes and MPLS routes, and it works fine
with RFC 8349. All other MPLS category augmentations can follow this style.
One question, my understanding is MPLS RIB will list all MPLS routes, such
as mpls-ldp routes and mpls-static routes. A comparison is IPv4 address-family
RIB lists all routes calculated by different routing protocols (BGP, OSPF etc),
and ietf-ospf.yang augments "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route"
with OSPF specific attributes. However, I don't see this relationship between
the base MPLS model and for example MPLS-LDP model, the binding state is in
container IPv4 and IPv6 address family, and this is a bit like OSPF local-rib.
The base MPLS routes is not showing this binding information (mpls-ldp model
may augment this although this is not critical.). Am I missing or
misunderstanding something here?
In RFC 8349, "leaf source-protocol" is mandatory, and its type is
identityref of routing-protocol. I don't see this is defined in the base MPLS,
mpls-ldp, or mpls-static model, so what will the "source-protocol" be?
<tp>
The problem I have is that I do not know what an address family is and I do not
know what a RIB is. I see different uses in different part of the IETF - e.g.
BGP makes extensive use of AF but it is not what is meant here - and RIB was
much discussed in the first iteration of the routing model with two major
manufacturers seeming to have different meanings and the I-D choosing one over
the other.
So, based on RFC8349, we have AF IPv4 unicast and AF IPv6 unicast as AF with
multicast and MPLS as future possibilities. And a RIB is defined by AF and a
name, with the possibility of multiple such if the box supports that. So a RIB
is all the routes with a given AF value (perhaps more than one suc).
So when you say the MPLS RIB will list all MPLS route - no, if AF is set to
MPLS it is the MPLS RIB, if AF is set to something else then it is a something
else RIB so a MPLS route could be in an IPv6multicast RIB..
For IPv4, it does not matter where the route came from , BGP, static, OSPF etc;
if the AF is IPv4unicast then that this the RIB it is in (other organisations
disagree but this is what RFC8349 says).
Which then says if you want MPLS-LDP in the same RIB, then you define them with
AF MPLS (while YANG allows you to derive AF and then use derived-from-or-self
to put a hierarchy of AF in a given RIB..
So what is comes down to is what RIB do you want, which stems from what AF do
you have? MPLS-static can be a different RIB or the same RIB - the choice is
yours when you configure the YANG modules assuming that they have defined the
appropriate AF..
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On 8/14/20, 9:25 AM, "Tarek Saad" <ts...@juniper.net> wrote:
Hi Acee and Tom,
The authors of ID: draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang met and we discussed the
points below.
We understand that RFC8349 defines an AF-agnostic model for RIBs.
RFC8349 defined only two types of RIBs (IPv4 and IPv6 RIBs), but we envision
other types of RIBs too (e.g. L2 RIB, MCAST RIB, etc.), in addition to MPLS RIB
-- and we hope all such RIBs indeed leverage the generic RIB model introduced
in RFC8349.
We revisited Acee's suggestion and made a small modification (on top of
it) that makes IP routes, MPLS routes (and possibly L2 or MCAST routes in
future) - all have similar MPLS augmentation (in terms of local-label) while
still adhering with RFC8349 to augment with leaf destination-prefix.
augment "/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route" {
when "derived-from-or-self(../../rt:address-family, "
+ "'mpls:mpls')" {
description
"This augment is valid only for native MPLS routes.";
}
description
"This leaf augments a native MPLS route.";
leaf destination-prefix {
type leafref {
path "../local-label";
}
description
"MPLS destination prefix.";
}
}
We follow same approach for the active route RPC and continue to use a
leaf "destination-address" as input (that points to a local-label leaf).
If this is acceptable, we believe the errata 6251 can be rejected and
we'll proceed with the change in the MPLS RIB model.
Regards,
Tarek (for authors)
On 8/11/20, 9:08 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Tom, Draft Authors,
The draft could easily be fixed. You just need to:
1. Expand on the single sentence in section 2.1 on the need for
non-IP MPLS routes. Given that the draft wasn't modeled correctly, this wasn't
apparent to most of the reviewers.
2. Add an MPLS AF only augmentation (enforced via a when
statement) to each route for the MPLS AF specific destination-prefix or
destination-address.
3. Limit the current local-label augmentation to non-MPLS AFs.
4. Limit the active-route augmentation to AF MPLS and change the
input to destination-address.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/11/20, 6:10 AM, "tom petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
From: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>
Sent: 11 August 2020 10:47
Hi Tom,
I fully understood your original comment. There are other
problems with this model. See inline.
On 8/11/20, 4:59 AM, "tom petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
Tarek
Picking up on an earlier point,
________________________________________
From: Tarek Saad <ts...@juniper.net>
Sent: 10 August 2020 21:23
Hi Acee,
The existing RPC is used to query (defined AFIs=IPv4/IPv6)
RIB to return the matching active route identified by a "destination address".
The MPLS module is trying to reuse this RPC so to query the
MPLS RIB to return the matching active route identified by a "local label".
The RPC defined in RFC 8349 readily accepts MPLS AFI in it
(/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route) - unless we augment and suppress
it with a "when check".
IMO, it is reusable as-is but the text below is limiting
the leaf name that identifies an entry in RIB to "destination-address" only -
in MPLS RIB the entry leaf name that identifies an entry is "local-label".
It is not reusable as is since the augmentation RPC
augmentation must have a when statement restricting it to AF MPLS. Also,
local-label is a leaf which is applicable to all address families. It cannot be
the AF MPLS destination-prefix. This augmentation is missing.
<tp>
I am probably getting out of my depth here, On 1may20 I raised
the issue of why the 'MUST' in the description in RFC8349 was not enforced in
the YANG and 5may20 Martin explained that there is a rule in the YANG ABNF of
input-stmt that makes the obvious impossible:-( You are raising more profound
issues about the RIB that I had not perceived when I reviewed mpls-base-yang
for which I, and I hope everyone else, will be grateful.
If this mpls I-D is to proceed in the immediate future, it
looks like the action may have to be deferred for future study.
More generally, I think that the interaction of forward by
address and forward by label is challenging. When first I looked at the MPLS
I-D I was surprised at the way RFC8349 was augmented. I had not seen MPLS as
an alternative to IPv4 or IPv6 or ... in the way in which the RFC is used
although the RFC does state that it can be; rather, to me, labels are a
different animal, but I assumed that everyone knew what they were doing.
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Acee
<tp>
There should be a 'when' check to enforce the 'MUST' but
the rules of YANG do not allow it in this structure. I raised this on the
NETMOD list at the time of WGLC and Martin pointed me to a rule in the ABNF
which prohibits such a check. He also said that the rule was not needed and
would be a candidate to remove when YANG is revised.
Hence I have always thought of this MUST in the
documentation as a constraint that must be enforced in the YANG
Tom Petch
> action active-route {
> description
> "Return the active RIB route that
is used for the
> destination address.
>
> Address-family-specific modules
MUST augment input
> parameters with a leaf named
'destination-address'.";
Regards,
Tarek
On 8/10/20, 3:27 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com>
wrote:
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
All (Speaking as an author of RFC 8349),
I just looked at this in more detail and I don't think
the ietf-mpls.yang model should be augmenting the
/rt:routing/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route RPC. The intent of the RPC is to
return the address-family specific active-route corresponding to the
destination-address. This model attempts to overload this RPC with a different
action all together - returning a route that has the local-label as an optional
attribute. I'd reject the Errata and believe the augmentation should be removed
from ietf-mpl.yang. Whether it is replaced with a different one is up to the
co-authors of ietf-mpls.yang.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/10/20, 2:29 PM, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)"
<rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
[Resend to hopefully pass recipient limit filter]
Hi Tom,
I would be interested to hear from the original
authors.
My impression is that this is a technically
reasonable change, but I don't think that an erratum can create a new revision
of a YANG module.
If this erratum was processed as "Hold for document
update" then would that be sufficient to do the right thing in the MPLS YANG
module?
Regards,
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>
> Sent: 10 August 2020 17:32
> To: RFC Errata System
<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; lho...@nic.cz; Acee
> Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>;
yingzhen...@huawei.com; war...@kumari.net;
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>;
joe...@bogus.com;
> kent+i...@watsen.net; lber...@labn.net
> Cc: ts...@juniper.net; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported]
RFC8349 (6251)
>
> From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf
of RFC Errata System
> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
> Sent: 07 August 2020 16:45
>
> <tp>
> This is the erratum of whose arrival I speculated
on this list on June
> 16th.
>
> There is a degree of urgency about it. The I-D
in question is mpls-base-
> yang, currently in IETF Last Call, which is a
Normative dependency of bfd-
> yang which is a Normative dependency for a small
mountain of I-D which
> have been waiting a year or so (e.g. ospf-yang).
>
> I suspect that the technically perfect solution
would involve a YANG
> union, choice or some such structure but as I
said in my Last Call comment
> I can live with a label that contains such as
'address' encompassing such
> as 'label' in the context of forwarding. I take
labels to mean what
> labels mean rather than what I might find in a
work of reference.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> The following errata report has been submitted
for RFC8349,
> "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management (NMDA
Version)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
>
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid6251__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxw8DnSr2A%24&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Cd4686302ebf54f18490a08d8406e9beb%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637330191097435008&sdata=G0myw%2BDac%2FzSudbPTi109q5JNQVaTLUTCQZHY1iQjsg%3D&reserved=0
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Tarek Saad <ts...@juniper.net>
>
> Section: 7
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The RPC "active-route" is used to retrieve the
active route in a RIB.
> RFC8349 defined two AFIs (v4/v6).
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang is defining a new RIB
AFI for MPLS as per
> section 3 in RFC8349.
>
> The RPC has a "MUST" statement that all RIBs must
augment input
> parameters with a leaf named
'destination-address'.
>
> For MPLS RIB, it makes sense to augment with leaf
named 'local-label'
> since MPLS routes are identified by MPLS label.
>
> We ask to make the following change:
>
> OLD:
> action active-route {
> description
> "Return the active RIB route that
is used for the
> destination address.
>
> Address-family-specific modules
MUST augment input
> parameters with a leaf named
'destination-address'.";
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> NEW:
> action active-route {
> description
> "Return the active RIB route that
is used for the
> destination address.
>
> Address-family-specific modules
MUST augment input
> parameters with a suitable leaf
that identifies the
> route.";
>
>
> Notes
> -----
>
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported".
If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be
verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the
verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the
report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8349 (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : A YANG Data Model for
Routing Management (NMDA
> Version)
> Publication Date : March 2018
> Author(s) : L. Lhotka, A. Lindem, Y. Qu
> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source : Network Modeling
> Area : Operations and Management
> Stream : IETF
> Verifying Party : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
>
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnetmod__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!URK5WVsqD5g7WpzCU1VuzKJA0AUiawXBFLB_gENlsYMrpiMqDtyFoxxyc2_LZA%24&data=02%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7Cd4686302ebf54f18490a08d8406e9beb%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637330191097435008&sdata=n8rsj63DK2eGc%2BM5%2BxzUarSUMNfeDUqj46t8FuCm5oI%3D&reserved=0
Juniper Business Use Only
Juniper Business Use Only
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
