Yingzhen, I think the following changes in naming are clearer:
set-import-level -> set-export-level import-level -> export-level 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. Thanks, Chris On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:08 AM Yingzhen Qu <[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]> > *Date: *Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 4:21 PM > *To: *Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>, Chris Bowers < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[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]> > *Date: *Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM > *To: *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 > *Resent-From: *<[email protected]> > *Resent-To: *<[email protected]>, Jeff Tantsura < > [email protected]>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Xufeng Liu < > [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]> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 2:23 PM > *To: *"[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Subject: *proposed example text and question on > draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model > *Resent-From: *<[email protected]> > *Resent-To: *<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, < > [email protected]>, <[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] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
