From nobody Tue Jan 3 13:32:22 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583CB129461 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:32:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GROmXfLya0Zv for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87FED12941E for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id u25so377842095qki.2 for ; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 13:32:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qt+gQz7JYAIywbT2gD4RUafYQaEraiJJ2bQGm8L645c=; b=bNY0NrCHN4vkDgbxsw0IUuwWZQ+LA7P8ihZz/H9ahpduXS4YSOxHQFSlA8HIZVoCrW CxjWYry7ys1rqcsc8JmbEMgn8X39SePO56Mum5EAyBYlPqiCboyqjBzlKKS5G4Q+YYQx ct/E7caVxuF0vzQySP1a0IybfOpJxfjWDndTbNpQOsAe6HuAeJtEOgEp3wNJT6R1goH3 0S8HVfYEKpqSBpzVbeegSFXhciNv2jVoe0aNc1ZMkKdA0qp7qEmcWGJUrNx9lroHdT96 pVBC20Fc6OL+t2pDIQXGBgTrI7vXGxDdyxs0TURQXXkjoozrVoOd9UMSHoDzgo6z16qe 69lA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qt+gQz7JYAIywbT2gD4RUafYQaEraiJJ2bQGm8L645c=; b=IvyMZ5QQ7bQUDk60r+7lTMwO5vnoBj6c+Z4fb+e6pCvbygpV2yoduZXQewBhGnPGhm ES+njkR/JYPh4v0j7SeKCbeUBh6b3LVcumMg9btss6s0GUBl8I59TipZfC9sq0BAaDMf 3R4Dapl+0rnKvU77nayR18pN0nLv2TCDW6GpwxxegvfIwx2PQqT+I7Dif75DRiaEtglD x1LKR8XHJccIk5PpahQwMIKZR91dYcRquqjv15t3BWHZb22HxZfP0htEb6FLJ8ZHU1ht KRHlY12YSbHWAt9+s4KOGnnT61tM0irnwlPXgFSEa/FRd4EV5JTP5XI9lPFAXbAhQqHs 23oQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKh2Ng+ZaBDKXsNDbiwmOZMDr5n6DYhTggWPtrk8bVqSmpzBHzqBDmn3YG7XVJ1i+POjL5GvR4mS1WyPQ== X-Received: by 10.55.168.208 with SMTP id r199mr70168539qke.189.1483479138664; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 13:32:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.92.2 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:32:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20161114021606.GA19529@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20161114021606.GA19529@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> From: Stig Venaas Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:32:18 -0800 Message-ID: To: Toerless Eckert Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org, "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:32:21 -0000 Hi I agree we need to figure these things out. pim is not in a unique position here, YANG models for other routing protocols must be facing the same questions. The bfd wg is working a model too, right? Perhaps discuss it in the bfd wg and work with those working on the model there? Alternatively we could remove bfd from our models for now. They could be added by a later RFC if a standard is needed. Stig On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > To follow up on the questions i had on the mike on Seoul@PIM: > > Can you pls. point me to a place that defines how BFD has to work if > two different protocols on the same interface are configured for differrnt > local-multiplier, desired-min-tx, required-min-rx-interval and the like. > > I hope thats specified in some BFD RFC/draft, but i couldn't find it browsing > them. > > Also: In Seoul, it was said that some vendors have configuration of these > parameters on a per-protocol basis. WOuld love a pointer toward any single > vendor doc about that. > > If these parameters can be configured underneath a particular protocol > (like PIM/BFD), why then should these parameters be "ro" instead of "rw" ? > > Last but not least: Given how there is no PIM-BFD specific "protocol spec" out > of PIM or MBoned, it looks to me as if all this discussion is probavbly better > done in BFD working group, and they should suggest the parameters that > can be configured. > > draft-ietf-ospf-yang has a section about BFD which seems to primarily > care about making OSPF-BFD in the OSPF-YANG model optional. I think > it would be prudent to do the same for PIM-BFD. On the other hand, even the > OSPF-BFD definition does not seem to define these parameters. So maybe > lets try to figur eout the best of what OSPF-BFD will ultimately do > and then copy to PIM - unless we figure out reasons to go beyond that approach. > > Cheers > Toerless > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From nobody Tue Jan 3 17:22:59 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4791298D0; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:22:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TW4jjmDGoq6c; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x241.google.com (mail-pg0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3068212951D; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x241.google.com with SMTP id n5so35196790pgh.3; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:22:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H49SW7wJha91Qrw2OyfBtw2oZUJX77SRO/xZAkPi6Pg=; b=o/bl8/GwN9VaM88BnVdcpFL1GEIA12fp7waP77tJKjhgWIL5Q52HnmS8Nv66EqgbGD MBgqCWctiXUWklxNqit3NTWdAKn/9evp/pa9w7mxKzOYx7vHBPWD6WiI90vlLHfRsQxi NgfTW7sVL/YR65Mg2fQsqayVjbcwA/Q5xTh+ecHfI3NDtvnPlYOu28SkksHochhuSNOl DADBwAVhQTR0+XnRa+R3STAT72ocvVJXzEZmQE9qh1RBYqIv4AA/e2sya7atywWHfK2/ pVuEjJXECiEuuIeJSkvIlgSJFEBNuW1Jv0DCDnlv6d6yLKtA34+6PqR8OWzJuhXHNfto Uv8g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=H49SW7wJha91Qrw2OyfBtw2oZUJX77SRO/xZAkPi6Pg=; b=oGP1ug38KKYmkphXS0ZnfJRISwHtkW6ALz6JZrgFBB7FsjuSJXoiRg17nn9RS4CDxl A8mleWmndR63bmGGWsAladntD3x9moMw7Jty+wobjObNU7XtFGTKQASRLv0XCNlOzz9+ 0IMOOOxO2dAq7Q3/DT7BFoafHv3PNooNwTgaUNLhTTgsSGRFrPX/pfO6rqHphJIDOYLQ UFfPyC6AwV37EtgeiFslDnqnAprIJZscY9vbki+z08m+81v3+B1G9ERXILIpjQCdaHeM sqyN2aKp4TPPnU/gUGkr+sln7p0jykVeHygsGE9U0YOdqunnZcN910ZrY6oE4iBWj3q+ W/QQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJOhhyq78yQ89dduCF8EDaaPH6JGRkYnu2lqwiW/sd1hDcqYi9YZq135yzTg39x9g== X-Received: by 10.99.38.3 with SMTP id m3mr120382922pgm.113.1483492975750; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:22:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.253.30] (107-1-141-74-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.1.141.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e6sm124852782pgf.4.2017.01.03.17.22.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:22:54 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209 Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:22:53 -0800 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Stig Venaas , Toerless Eckert , "Acee Lindem (acee)" , Message-ID: <3E3FC0E5-528C-4FFF-8CE6-6770C8C3476F@gmail.com> Thread-Topic: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions References: <20161114021606.GA19529@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org, "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 01:22:58 -0000 Hi, I=E2=80=99d like to align at least IGP=E2=80=99s and PIM, ISIS =E2=80=93 bfd is a feature OSPF - defines module ietf-ospf-bfd bfd containers: ospf: container bfd { description "BFD configuration."; leaf enable { type boolean; default false; isis: container bfd { if-feature bfd; leaf enable { type boolean; default false; including Acee and Derek=20 Cheers, Jeff =20 On 1/3/17, 13:32, "pim on behalf of Stig Venaas" wrote: Hi =20 I agree we need to figure these things out. pim is not in a unique position here, YANG models for other routing protocols must be facing the same questions. The bfd wg is working a model too, right? Perhaps discuss it in the bfd wg and work with those working on the model there? =20 Alternatively we could remove bfd from our models for now. They could be added by a later RFC if a standard is needed. =20 Stig =20 =20 On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Toerless Eckert w= rote: > To follow up on the questions i had on the mike on Seoul@PIM: > > Can you pls. point me to a place that defines how BFD has to work if > two different protocols on the same interface are configured for diff= errnt > local-multiplier, desired-min-tx, required-min-rx-interval and the li= ke. > > I hope thats specified in some BFD RFC/draft, but i couldn't find it = browsing > them. > > Also: In Seoul, it was said that some vendors have configuration of t= hese > parameters on a per-protocol basis. WOuld love a pointer toward any s= ingle > vendor doc about that. > > If these parameters can be configured underneath a particular protoco= l > (like PIM/BFD), why then should these parameters be "ro" instead of "= rw" ? > > Last but not least: Given how there is no PIM-BFD specific "protocol = spec" out > of PIM or MBoned, it looks to me as if all this discussion is probavb= ly better > done in BFD working group, and they should suggest the parameters tha= t > can be configured. > > draft-ietf-ospf-yang has a section about BFD which seems to primarily > care about making OSPF-BFD in the OSPF-YANG model optional. I think > it would be prudent to do the same for PIM-BFD. On the other hand, ev= en the > OSPF-BFD definition does not seem to define these parameters. So mayb= e > lets try to figur eout the best of what OSPF-BFD will ultimately do > and then copy to PIM - unless we figure out reasons to go beyond that= approach. > > Cheers > Toerless > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim =20 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim =20 From nobody Wed Jan 4 09:35:46 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91DF129698; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 09:35:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jabil.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rs2IVMpYCH5b; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 09:35:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0113.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC69129697; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 09:35:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jabil.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-jabil-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=ncd6bb1rudzMxjTyrUkojAj7gxf/Gl4jm8/K988c56M=; b=iMF7+e1gAjZxFLTXpv6HQFy6i+sla+buXZY9Hn5rOyPxcc7loVB1L0AjNEZZQeu/Vutl1R/1by42Mb5YPqAGjByzKYyx4+EG+Djq3iQie3ascUR/7I4Pn0qxR6kCYrz4wEwADNMgRqCzkO9dXxhtuRhKGjummFKAm+kDFz2knBk= Received: from BN3PR02MB1141.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.162.168.147) by BN3PR02MB1141.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.162.168.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.803.11; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:35:40 +0000 Received: from BN3PR02MB1141.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.168.147]) by BN3PR02MB1141.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.168.147]) with mapi id 15.01.0803.021; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:35:40 +0000 From: Xufeng Liu To: Jeff Tantsura , Stig Venaas , Toerless Eckert , "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "derek@arrcus.com" , Jeff Haas Thread-Topic: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions Thread-Index: AQHSPh0U48BP3y+u3U2EACvfT8Mwl6EnlX0AgABAbICAAQywoA== Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:35:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20161114021606.GA19529@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3E3FC0E5-528C-4FFF-8CE6-6770C8C3476F@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3E3FC0E5-528C-4FFF-8CE6-6770C8C3476F@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com; x-originating-ip: [98.191.72.170] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 85d9bd9d-5eb5-4f8e-bac4-08d434c81a2e x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:BN3PR02MB1141; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR02MB1141; 7:DYqi3jJgX+Cqh0wa1hMP8f/KNy6eTRIy8SUyrs1948jLVK8COHHXO1FRc32PIeI54ZvKv8wM3/UnV93gu/CV0wcvxh3oo3LCr4heL4YeXFUlkabjCV3xCPmnhkWxJdyVhpBUN11CTNIWoRj29PGiH5QzwOvVBwx8vI0W3QoprWfgewAe2HnSeAq7u4eZzqJ46sI70q4i6qMY8TJ4KypLaPTdWsG6eV+904gfDwsFqwXf86Lpquj5kachv7RQAroZsf16bEBnVjM4U6lgQ9WvDpGtA0HcCSoN7IhZcWSakto6syJ/h/qWTMlSF4vSdjoti0GVsZjVY3pSW9z7kZ2M0ZzcdQ00u9O6lS9sdhWVC8dzdDJF97W+EUXgtOJNlchwxbkDDQaI1W2D+stwSItMQUjMvm4ObTIOQW85eM2TXHN2Rz35Nx/hSsHvLAd4+FhQ91ZBStfLrdq95ah7zGfzqQ== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR02MB1141; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR02MB1141; x-forefront-prvs: 0177904E6B x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(39860400002)(39850400002)(39410400002)(39840400002)(13464003)(24454002)(51444003)(199003)(189002)(377454003)(81156014)(66066001)(76176999)(54906002)(230783001)(9686002)(2900100001)(229853002)(3660700001)(8676002)(7736002)(2906002)(102836003)(4326007)(77096006)(55016002)(3280700002)(6116002)(38730400001)(8936002)(6506006)(39060400001)(3846002)(106356001)(2501003)(122556002)(101416001)(50986999)(105586002)(81166006)(189998001)(92566002)(8666007)(5660300001)(86362001)(6436002)(99286003)(5001770100001)(305945005)(68736007)(74316002)(1941001)(97736004)(54356999)(80792005)(7696004)(106116001)(2950100002)(25786008)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR02MB1141; H:BN3PR02MB1141.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: jabil.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: jabil.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jan 2017 17:35:40.0914 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bc876b21-f134-4c12-a265-8ed26b7f0f3b X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR02MB1141 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org" , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 17:35:45 -0000 RHVyaW5nIElFVEYgYXQgU2VvdWwsIHRoaXMgdG9waWMgd2FzIGJyb3VnaHQgdG8gdGhlIGF0dGVu dGlvbiBvZiBCRkQgV0cgQ2hhaXIsIEplZmYgSGFhcyAoIGNjJ2VkICkuIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCBC RkQgV0cgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IHdvcmtpbmcgb24gaXQsIGFuZCB3aWxsIHByb3ZpZGUgZ3VpZGVs aW5lcy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQotIFh1ZmVuZw0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0t LS0tDQo+IEZyb206IEplZmYgVGFudHN1cmEgW21haWx0bzpqZWZmdGFudC5pZXRmQGdtYWlsLmNv bV0NCj4gU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwgSmFudWFyeSAzLCAyMDE3IDg6MjMgUE0NCj4gVG86IFN0aWcg VmVuYWFzIDxzdGlnQHZlbmFhcy5jb20+OyBUb2VybGVzcyBFY2tlcnQgPHR0ZStpZXRmQGNzLmZh dS5kZT47DQo+IEFjZWUgTGluZGVtIChhY2VlKSA8YWNlZUBjaXNjby5jb20+OyBkZXJla0BhcnJj dXMuY29tDQo+IENjOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBpbS15YW5nQGlldGYub3JnOyBwaW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcN Cj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtwaW1dIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcGltLXlhbmctMDM6IHF1ZXN0aW9ucw0K PiANCj4gSGksDQo+IA0KPiBJ4oCZZCBsaWtlIHRvIGFsaWduIGF0IGxlYXN0IElHUOKAmXMgYW5k IFBJTSwNCj4gDQo+IElTSVMg4oCTIGJmZCBpcyBhIGZlYXR1cmUNCj4gT1NQRiAtIGRlZmluZXMg bW9kdWxlIGlldGYtb3NwZi1iZmQNCj4gDQo+IGJmZCBjb250YWluZXJzOg0KPiBvc3BmOg0KPiBj b250YWluZXIgYmZkIHsNCj4gICAgICAgICAgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gIkJGRCBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9u LiI7DQo+ICAgICAgICAgIGxlYWYgZW5hYmxlIHsNCj4gICAgICAgICAgICB0eXBlIGJvb2xlYW47 DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgZGVmYXVsdCBmYWxzZTsNCj4gDQo+IGlzaXM6DQo+IGNvbnRhaW5lciBi ZmQgew0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgaWYtZmVhdHVyZSBiZmQ7DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICBsZWFmIGVuYWJs ZSB7DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgdHlwZSBib29sZWFuOw0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGRlZmF1 bHQgZmFsc2U7DQo+IA0KPiAgaW5jbHVkaW5nIEFjZWUgYW5kIERlcmVrDQo+IA0KPiBDaGVlcnMs DQo+IEplZmYNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBPbiAxLzMvMTcsIDEzOjMyLCAicGltIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBT dGlnIFZlbmFhcyIgPHBpbS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIG9uDQo+IGJlaGFsZiBvZiBzdGlnQHZl bmFhcy5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPiANCj4gICAgIEhpDQo+IA0KPiAgICAgSSBhZ3JlZSB3ZSBuZWVk IHRvIGZpZ3VyZSB0aGVzZSB0aGluZ3Mgb3V0LiBwaW0gaXMgbm90IGluIGEgdW5pcXVlDQo+ICAg ICBwb3NpdGlvbiBoZXJlLCBZQU5HIG1vZGVscyBmb3Igb3RoZXIgcm91dGluZyBwcm90b2NvbHMg bXVzdCBiZSBmYWNpbmcNCj4gICAgIHRoZSBzYW1lIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4gVGhlIGJmZCB3ZyBpcyB3 b3JraW5nIGEgbW9kZWwgdG9vLCByaWdodD8gUGVyaGFwcw0KPiAgICAgZGlzY3VzcyBpdCBpbiB0 aGUgYmZkIHdnIGFuZCB3b3JrIHdpdGggdGhvc2Ugd29ya2luZyBvbiB0aGUgbW9kZWwNCj4gICAg IHRoZXJlPw0KPiANCj4gICAgIEFsdGVybmF0aXZlbHkgd2UgY291bGQgcmVtb3ZlIGJmZCBmcm9t IG91ciBtb2RlbHMgZm9yIG5vdy4gVGhleSBjb3VsZA0KPiAgICAgYmUgYWRkZWQgYnkgYSBsYXRl ciBSRkMgaWYgYSBzdGFuZGFyZCBpcyBuZWVkZWQuDQo+IA0KPiAgICAgU3RpZw0KPiANCj4gDQo+ ICAgICBPbiBTdW4sIE5vdiAxMywgMjAxNiBhdCA2OjE2IFBNLCBUb2VybGVzcyBFY2tlcnQgPHR0 ZStpZXRmQGNzLmZhdS5kZT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ICAgICA+IFRvIGZvbGxvdyB1cCBvbiB0aGUgcXVl c3Rpb25zIGkgaGFkIG9uIHRoZSBtaWtlIG9uIFNlb3VsQFBJTToNCj4gICAgID4NCj4gICAgID4g Q2FuIHlvdSBwbHMuIHBvaW50IG1lIHRvIGEgcGxhY2UgdGhhdCBkZWZpbmVzIGhvdyBCRkQgaGFz IHRvIHdvcmsgaWYNCj4gICAgID4gdHdvIGRpZmZlcmVudCBwcm90b2NvbHMgb24gdGhlIHNhbWUg aW50ZXJmYWNlIGFyZSBjb25maWd1cmVkIGZvciBkaWZmZXJybnQNCj4gICAgID4gbG9jYWwtbXVs dGlwbGllciwgZGVzaXJlZC1taW4tdHgsIHJlcXVpcmVkLW1pbi1yeC1pbnRlcnZhbCBhbmQgdGhl IGxpa2UuDQo+ICAgICA+DQo+ICAgICA+IEkgaG9wZSB0aGF0cyBzcGVjaWZpZWQgaW4gc29tZSBC RkQgUkZDL2RyYWZ0LCBidXQgaSBjb3VsZG4ndCBmaW5kIGl0IGJyb3dzaW5nDQo+ICAgICA+IHRo ZW0uDQo+ICAgICA+DQo+ICAgICA+IEFsc286IEluIFNlb3VsLCBpdCB3YXMgc2FpZCB0aGF0IHNv bWUgdmVuZG9ycyBoYXZlIGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlc2UNCj4gICAgID4gcGFyYW1ldGVy cyBvbiBhIHBlci1wcm90b2NvbCBiYXNpcy4gV091bGQgbG92ZSBhIHBvaW50ZXIgdG93YXJkIGFu eSBzaW5nbGUNCj4gICAgID4gdmVuZG9yIGRvYyBhYm91dCB0aGF0Lg0KPiAgICAgPg0KPiAgICAg PiBJZiB0aGVzZSBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIGNhbiBiZSBjb25maWd1cmVkIHVuZGVybmVhdGggYSBwYXJ0 aWN1bGFyIHByb3RvY29sDQo+ICAgICA+IChsaWtlIFBJTS9CRkQpLCB3aHkgdGhlbiBzaG91bGQg dGhlc2UgcGFyYW1ldGVycyBiZSAicm8iIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgInJ3IiA/DQo+ICAgICA+DQo+ICAg ICA+IExhc3QgYnV0IG5vdCBsZWFzdDogR2l2ZW4gaG93IHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIFBJTS1CRkQgc3Bl Y2lmaWMgInByb3RvY29sIHNwZWMiDQo+IG91dA0KPiAgICAgPiBvZiBQSU0gb3IgTUJvbmVkLCBp dCBsb29rcyB0byBtZSBhcyBpZiBhbGwgdGhpcyBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGlzIHByb2JhdmJseSBiZXR0 ZXINCj4gICAgID4gZG9uZSBpbiBCRkQgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCwgYW5kIHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIHN1 Z2dlc3QgdGhlIHBhcmFtZXRlcnMgdGhhdA0KPiAgICAgPiBjYW4gYmUgY29uZmlndXJlZC4NCj4g ICAgID4NCj4gICAgID4gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1vc3BmLXlhbmcgaGFzIGEgc2VjdGlvbiBhYm91dCBC RkQgd2hpY2ggc2VlbXMgdG8gcHJpbWFyaWx5DQo+ICAgICA+IGNhcmUgYWJvdXQgbWFraW5nIE9T UEYtQkZEIGluIHRoZSBPU1BGLVlBTkcgbW9kZWwgb3B0aW9uYWwuIEkgdGhpbmsNCj4gICAgID4g aXQgd291bGQgYmUgcHJ1ZGVudCB0byBkbyB0aGUgc2FtZSBmb3IgUElNLUJGRC4gT24gdGhlIG90 aGVyIGhhbmQsIGV2ZW4NCj4gdGhlDQo+ICAgICA+IE9TUEYtQkZEIGRlZmluaXRpb24gZG9lcyBu b3Qgc2VlbSB0byBkZWZpbmUgdGhlc2UgcGFyYW1ldGVycy4gU28gbWF5YmUNCj4gICAgID4gbGV0 cyB0cnkgdG8gZmlndXIgZW91dCB0aGUgYmVzdCBvZiB3aGF0IE9TUEYtQkZEIHdpbGwgdWx0aW1h dGVseSBkbw0KPiAgICAgPiBhbmQgdGhlbiBjb3B5IHRvIFBJTSAtIHVubGVzcyB3ZSBmaWd1cmUg b3V0IHJlYXNvbnMgdG8gZ28gYmV5b25kIHRoYXQNCj4gYXBwcm9hY2guDQo+ICAgICA+DQo+ICAg ICA+IENoZWVycw0KPiAgICAgPiAgICAgVG9lcmxlc3MNCj4gICAgID4NCj4gICAgID4gX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gICAgID4gcGltIG1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiAgICAgPiBwaW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gICAgID4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9waW0NCj4gDQo+ICAgICBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiAgICAgcGltIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiAg ICAgcGltQGlldGYub3JnDQo+ICAgICBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3Rp bmZvL3BpbQ0KPiANCj4gDQoNCg== From nobody Wed Jan 4 14:56:11 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietf.org Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76CA1296AB; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 14:56:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148357056864.13018.9967007031325840733.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:56:08 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] pim - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 98 X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 22:56:09 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Stig Venaas, a Chair of the pim working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Protocols for IP Multicast Area Name: Routing Area Session Requester: Stig Venaas Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: bier homenet i2rs mboned nvo3 rtgarea sdnrg Second Priority: bess rtgwg lisp Special Requests: We would be happy to share our meeting slot with mboned. --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Fri Jan 13 10:31:09 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C438129D3F; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:31:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.757 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.757 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=netorgft1331857.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TeRStf0ALmkW; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:31:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [67.231.154.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23CB4129D3D; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:31:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from pure.maildistiller.com (unknown [10.110.50.29]) by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 64F2D800C2; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:31:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from mx3-us3.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.110.49.251]) by pure.maildistiller.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 0434480054; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:31:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02lp0024.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx3-us3.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 9E21760062; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:30:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=NETORGFT1331857.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arrcus-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=VtrJ3RG0mP6wKgXzsHrd+IOWuQ3w0y8xEyypminG2uQ=; b=j4xLsWs2w5OHoMAN09orM5UoJZUTPiMeQ64/zGHsAPHeJiTQtAUSRsNoviT2W+Zyr/LHmQRtR0yL1f5mRA7dyn4F8Xdu0NtbSklnw3vF0F4ebgJ5osnGXMvylkGoBOQp6lOvGy1frz6Sg4s3PU7Uzb8hAYG5C2K5dGPx8dNIy6Q= Received: from MWHPR18MB1613.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (10.173.244.15) by MWHPR18MB1616.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (10.173.244.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.829.7; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:30:48 +0000 Received: from MWHPR18MB1613.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.244.15]) by MWHPR18MB1613.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.244.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0829.013; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:30:48 +0000 From: Derek Yeung To: Xufeng Liu , Jeff Tantsura , Stig Venaas , Toerless Eckert , "Acee Lindem (acee)" , Jeff Haas Thread-Topic: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions Thread-Index: AQHSZikWEgPT052JMkqRms41ZiPKNqEolZwAgA2uRQA= Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:30:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20161114021606.GA19529@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3E3FC0E5-528C-4FFF-8CE6-6770C8C3476F@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=derek@arrcus.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [67.169.5.26] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fc0799bc-116a-4a00-842c-08d43be24b76 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:MWHPR18MB1616; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR18MB1616; 7:F4AG5Zm7+4M0GfdxYjfj77djrsR1BfKUWxVJUsETL1jNUJLq++fkbIRvzjk3DmDgTibDukLn6TVC2ojtSTniw7UPGC+oH1Obb8+SkqK2+Gjm/yyzdMW5VYMU9nsJ1J8pCQVskQuwHflJJmJauD8m5gwFJol/fDKKiq4uat8dHq67sOoQWAOq0r6IaHQiyzjVaFW+q88ULrSvFUNpJd4YzOGXoAohyQXxq+RgfFEl8nGUfE8fXQMqJE3xNUVf8J+2ITcihXN8+zrLzfPnZnVwToFzYA0n3bYHFDU618H9wEqoniXT5cjy9QKi5UIUs6YN7Y+IuSJvDGbmNfnYYk1DWAm+t2yx7cuJUHelV0UBRSinhfBv1Weac0r/9pSGtBYNEsMxjgpW0QgilZzYRF6tw24IZaVyTJT+6c+liVVWTM45UNGOHiwrjQ+LjIYrg7dH2QAqtKsqIQkeZ0LWpyltWw== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014)(21534305686606); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(2016111802025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(6072148)(6043046); SRVR:MWHPR18MB1616; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR18MB1616; x-forefront-prvs: 018632C080 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(39410400002)(39830400002)(39450400003)(199003)(24454002)(51444003)(13464003)(189002)(377454003)(6512007)(122556002)(101416001)(230783001)(189998001)(33656002)(86362001)(6306002)(92566002)(305945005)(81166006)(6116002)(68736007)(5001770100001)(8676002)(3846002)(81156014)(7736002)(97736004)(39060400001)(2900100001)(229853002)(6486002)(6436002)(54356999)(76176999)(2906002)(102836003)(99286003)(6506006)(5660300001)(2950100002)(77096006)(38730400001)(8936002)(3280700002)(1941001)(93886004)(106116001)(82746002)(83716003)(66066001)(4326007)(25786008)(106356001)(3660700001)(8666007)(105586002)(54906002)(36756003)(50986999)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR18MB1616; H:MWHPR18MB1613.namprd18.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arrcus.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <59C3FCF4D94AB547871B3281E0C1FE49@namprd18.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: arrcus.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Jan 2017 18:30:47.8786 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 697b3529-5c2b-40cf-a019-193eb78f6820 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR18MB1616 X-MDID: 1484332260-8tsG-mEYJc0Q Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org" , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:31:07 -0000 T1NQRiBtb2RlbCB1c2UgYXVnbWVudGF0aW9uIG1vZHVsZSBiZWNhdXNlIG9mIHR3byByZWFzb25z Lg0KMSkgV2hlbiBPU1BGIGZpcnN0IGFkZCBCRkQgZmVhdHVyZSwgdGhlIEJGRCBtb2RlbCBpcyBu b3Qgc3RhYmxlIGFuZCB3ZSB3YW50IHRvIGlzb2xhdGUgdGhlIE9TUEYgYmFzZSBtb2RlbCBmcm9t IGl0Lg0KMikgSXQgdGhlIGVhcmxpZXIgQkZEIG1vZGVsLCB0aGUgcGVyIHByb3RvY29sIGNvbmZp Z3VyYXRpb24gaXMgc3VwcG9ydGVkIGFuZCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIEJGRCBncm91cGluZyAoYmZkLWdy b3VwaW5nLWJhc2UtY2ZnLXBhcm1zKSB0aGF0IE9TUEYgbmVlZCB0byB1c2UuIFNlZSBkcmFmdC16 aGVuZy1iZmQteWFuZy0wNC50eHQuDQoNClRoZSBwZXItcHJvdG9jb2wgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiBp cyBsYXRlciByZW1vdmVkIGZyb20gQkZEIGFuZCBoZW5jZSBmcm9tIE9TUEYgQkZEIG1vZGVsLCBs ZWF2aW5nIGl0IHdpdGggYSBzaW5nbGUgYm9vbGVhbiBsZWFmLiANCklmIGl0IGlzIGNvbmZpZGVu dCB0aGF0IHRoZSBCRkQgbW9kZWwgaXMgbm93IHN0YWJsZSwgd2UgY291bGQgY2hhbmdlIE9TUEYg bW9kZWwgdG8gdXNlIGZlYXR1cmUgd2l0aCBzaW5nbGUgYm9vbGVhbiBsZWFmIGluc3RlYWQuDQoN ClRoYW5rcywNCkRlcmVrDQoNCk9uIDEvNC8xNywgOTozNSBBTSwgIlh1ZmVuZyBMaXUiIDxYdWZl bmdfTGl1QGphYmlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCiAgICBEdXJpbmcgSUVURiBhdCBTZW91bCwgdGhp cyB0b3BpYyB3YXMgYnJvdWdodCB0byB0aGUgYXR0ZW50aW9uIG9mIEJGRCBXRyBDaGFpciwgSmVm ZiBIYWFzICggY2MnZWQgKS4gSSB0aGluayB0aGF0IEJGRCBXRyBpcyBjdXJyZW50bHkgd29ya2lu ZyBvbiBpdCwgYW5kIHdpbGwgcHJvdmlkZSBndWlkZWxpbmVzLg0KICAgIA0KICAgIFRoYW5rcywN CiAgICANCiAgICAtIFh1ZmVuZw0KICAgIA0KICAgID4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0t LS0NCiAgICA+IEZyb206IEplZmYgVGFudHN1cmEgW21haWx0bzpqZWZmdGFudC5pZXRmQGdtYWls LmNvbV0NCiAgICA+IFNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMywgMjAxNyA4OjIzIFBNDQogICAg PiBUbzogU3RpZyBWZW5hYXMgPHN0aWdAdmVuYWFzLmNvbT47IFRvZXJsZXNzIEVja2VydCA8dHRl K2lldGZAY3MuZmF1LmRlPjsNCiAgICA+IEFjZWUgTGluZGVtIChhY2VlKSA8YWNlZUBjaXNjby5j b20+OyBkZXJla0BhcnJjdXMuY29tDQogICAgPiBDYzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1waW0teWFuZ0BpZXRm Lm9yZzsgcGltQGlldGYub3JnDQogICAgPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW3BpbV0gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1w aW0teWFuZy0wMzogcXVlc3Rpb25zDQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+IEhpLA0KICAgID4gDQogICAgPiBJ 4oCZZCBsaWtlIHRvIGFsaWduIGF0IGxlYXN0IElHUOKAmXMgYW5kIFBJTSwNCiAgICA+IA0KICAg ID4gSVNJUyDigJMgYmZkIGlzIGEgZmVhdHVyZQ0KICAgID4gT1NQRiAtIGRlZmluZXMgbW9kdWxl IGlldGYtb3NwZi1iZmQNCiAgICA+IA0KICAgID4gYmZkIGNvbnRhaW5lcnM6DQogICAgPiBvc3Bm Og0KICAgID4gY29udGFpbmVyIGJmZCB7DQogICAgPiAgICAgICAgICBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbiAiQkZE IGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24uIjsNCiAgICA+ICAgICAgICAgIGxlYWYgZW5hYmxlIHsNCiAgICA+ICAg ICAgICAgICAgdHlwZSBib29sZWFuOw0KICAgID4gICAgICAgICAgICBkZWZhdWx0IGZhbHNlOw0K ICAgID4gDQogICAgPiBpc2lzOg0KICAgID4gY29udGFpbmVyIGJmZCB7DQogICAgPiAgICAgICAg ICAgaWYtZmVhdHVyZSBiZmQ7DQogICAgPiAgICAgICAgICAgbGVhZiBlbmFibGUgew0KICAgID4g ICAgICAgICAgICAgICB0eXBlIGJvb2xlYW47DQogICAgPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGRlZmF1bHQg ZmFsc2U7DQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+ICBpbmNsdWRpbmcgQWNlZSBhbmQgRGVyZWsNCiAgICA+IA0K ICAgID4gQ2hlZXJzLA0KICAgID4gSmVmZg0KICAgID4gDQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+IE9uIDEvMy8x NywgMTM6MzIsICJwaW0gb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIFN0aWcgVmVuYWFzIiA8cGltLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0 Zi5vcmcgb24NCiAgICA+IGJlaGFsZiBvZiBzdGlnQHZlbmFhcy5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KICAgID4g DQogICAgPiAgICAgSGkNCiAgICA+IA0KICAgID4gICAgIEkgYWdyZWUgd2UgbmVlZCB0byBmaWd1 cmUgdGhlc2UgdGhpbmdzIG91dC4gcGltIGlzIG5vdCBpbiBhIHVuaXF1ZQ0KICAgID4gICAgIHBv c2l0aW9uIGhlcmUsIFlBTkcgbW9kZWxzIGZvciBvdGhlciByb3V0aW5nIHByb3RvY29scyBtdXN0 IGJlIGZhY2luZw0KICAgID4gICAgIHRoZSBzYW1lIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4gVGhlIGJmZCB3ZyBpcyB3 b3JraW5nIGEgbW9kZWwgdG9vLCByaWdodD8gUGVyaGFwcw0KICAgID4gICAgIGRpc2N1c3MgaXQg aW4gdGhlIGJmZCB3ZyBhbmQgd29yayB3aXRoIHRob3NlIHdvcmtpbmcgb24gdGhlIG1vZGVsDQog ICAgPiAgICAgdGhlcmU/DQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+ICAgICBBbHRlcm5hdGl2ZWx5IHdlIGNvdWxk IHJlbW92ZSBiZmQgZnJvbSBvdXIgbW9kZWxzIGZvciBub3cuIFRoZXkgY291bGQNCiAgICA+ICAg ICBiZSBhZGRlZCBieSBhIGxhdGVyIFJGQyBpZiBhIHN0YW5kYXJkIGlzIG5lZWRlZC4NCiAgICA+ IA0KICAgID4gICAgIFN0aWcNCiAgICA+IA0KICAgID4gDQogICAgPiAgICAgT24gU3VuLCBOb3Yg MTMsIDIwMTYgYXQgNjoxNiBQTSwgVG9lcmxlc3MgRWNrZXJ0IDx0dGUraWV0ZkBjcy5mYXUuZGU+ IHdyb3RlOg0KICAgID4gICAgID4gVG8gZm9sbG93IHVwIG9uIHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbnMgaSBoYWQg b24gdGhlIG1pa2Ugb24gU2VvdWxAUElNOg0KICAgID4gICAgID4NCiAgICA+ICAgICA+IENhbiB5 b3UgcGxzLiBwb2ludCBtZSB0byBhIHBsYWNlIHRoYXQgZGVmaW5lcyBob3cgQkZEIGhhcyB0byB3 b3JrIGlmDQogICAgPiAgICAgPiB0d28gZGlmZmVyZW50IHByb3RvY29scyBvbiB0aGUgc2FtZSBp bnRlcmZhY2UgYXJlIGNvbmZpZ3VyZWQgZm9yIGRpZmZlcnJudA0KICAgID4gICAgID4gbG9jYWwt bXVsdGlwbGllciwgZGVzaXJlZC1taW4tdHgsIHJlcXVpcmVkLW1pbi1yeC1pbnRlcnZhbCBhbmQg dGhlIGxpa2UuDQogICAgPiAgICAgPg0KICAgID4gICAgID4gSSBob3BlIHRoYXRzIHNwZWNpZmll ZCBpbiBzb21lIEJGRCBSRkMvZHJhZnQsIGJ1dCBpIGNvdWxkbid0IGZpbmQgaXQgYnJvd3NpbmcN CiAgICA+ICAgICA+IHRoZW0uDQogICAgPiAgICAgPg0KICAgID4gICAgID4gQWxzbzogSW4gU2Vv dWwsIGl0IHdhcyBzYWlkIHRoYXQgc29tZSB2ZW5kb3JzIGhhdmUgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0 aGVzZQ0KICAgID4gICAgID4gcGFyYW1ldGVycyBvbiBhIHBlci1wcm90b2NvbCBiYXNpcy4gV091 bGQgbG92ZSBhIHBvaW50ZXIgdG93YXJkIGFueSBzaW5nbGUNCiAgICA+ICAgICA+IHZlbmRvciBk b2MgYWJvdXQgdGhhdC4NCiAgICA+ICAgICA+DQogICAgPiAgICAgPiBJZiB0aGVzZSBwYXJhbWV0 ZXJzIGNhbiBiZSBjb25maWd1cmVkIHVuZGVybmVhdGggYSBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIHByb3RvY29sDQog ICAgPiAgICAgPiAobGlrZSBQSU0vQkZEKSwgd2h5IHRoZW4gc2hvdWxkIHRoZXNlIHBhcmFtZXRl cnMgYmUgInJvIiBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mICJydyIgPw0KICAgID4gICAgID4NCiAgICA+ICAgICA+IExh c3QgYnV0IG5vdCBsZWFzdDogR2l2ZW4gaG93IHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIFBJTS1CRkQgc3BlY2lmaWMg InByb3RvY29sIHNwZWMiDQogICAgPiBvdXQNCiAgICA+ICAgICA+IG9mIFBJTSBvciBNQm9uZWQs IGl0IGxvb2tzIHRvIG1lIGFzIGlmIGFsbCB0aGlzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gaXMgcHJvYmF2Ymx5IGJl dHRlcg0KICAgID4gICAgID4gZG9uZSBpbiBCRkQgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCwgYW5kIHRoZXkgc2hv dWxkIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhlIHBhcmFtZXRlcnMgdGhhdA0KICAgID4gICAgID4gY2FuIGJlIGNvbmZp Z3VyZWQuDQogICAgPiAgICAgPg0KICAgID4gICAgID4gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1vc3BmLXlhbmcgaGFz IGEgc2VjdGlvbiBhYm91dCBCRkQgd2hpY2ggc2VlbXMgdG8gcHJpbWFyaWx5DQogICAgPiAgICAg PiBjYXJlIGFib3V0IG1ha2luZyBPU1BGLUJGRCBpbiB0aGUgT1NQRi1ZQU5HIG1vZGVsIG9wdGlv bmFsLiBJIHRoaW5rDQogICAgPiAgICAgPiBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBwcnVkZW50IHRvIGRvIHRoZSBz YW1lIGZvciBQSU0tQkZELiBPbiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaGFuZCwgZXZlbg0KICAgID4gdGhlDQogICAg PiAgICAgPiBPU1BGLUJGRCBkZWZpbml0aW9uIGRvZXMgbm90IHNlZW0gdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZXNl IHBhcmFtZXRlcnMuIFNvIG1heWJlDQogICAgPiAgICAgPiBsZXRzIHRyeSB0byBmaWd1ciBlb3V0 IHRoZSBiZXN0IG9mIHdoYXQgT1NQRi1CRkQgd2lsbCB1bHRpbWF0ZWx5IGRvDQogICAgPiAgICAg PiBhbmQgdGhlbiBjb3B5IHRvIFBJTSAtIHVubGVzcyB3ZSBmaWd1cmUgb3V0IHJlYXNvbnMgdG8g Z28gYmV5b25kIHRoYXQNCiAgICA+IGFwcHJvYWNoLg0KICAgID4gICAgID4NCiAgICA+ICAgICA+ IENoZWVycw0KICAgID4gICAgID4gICAgIFRvZXJsZXNzDQogICAgPiAgICAgPg0KICAgID4gICAg ID4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCiAgICA+ ICAgICA+IHBpbSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCiAgICA+ICAgICA+IHBpbUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KICAgID4g ICAgID4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9waW0NCiAgICA+IA0K ICAgID4gICAgIF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f DQogICAgPiAgICAgcGltIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KICAgID4gICAgIHBpbUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KICAg ID4gICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcGltDQogICAgPiAN CiAgICA+IA0KICAgIA0KICAgIA0KDQo= From nobody Wed Jan 18 05:16:36 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8E71296C9; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:16:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.721 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zbWui3DqtBCD; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:16:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F47F129467; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:16:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5614; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484745391; x=1485954991; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=GFWcderH5dbCayDB6b6SKZCy25GBmCPSzG8A35uy1Lk=; b=F1ltwdA5cxoiVoBmHqvURDcaksD2yeG67NhQ29lHcEOasgSu8y2bihae y3Z7/NH7jWys/MCpmAuCp3ek3K11yH+r+tjY1gurpo3z20qz/dtbHZjIV MZB+K18YxczQBhsfOZbJkuMwJaFRo4DbA1rF/yeFTQjPcswcstifVQhXL o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AWAQD3aX9Y/5ldJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgzkBAQEBAR9fgQkHjVKSAogEjSiCCx8LhXgCgW8/GAECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWMohGkBAQEDAQEBbAsMBAIBCBEEAQEBJwchBgsUCQgCBAENBYhoAxAIDrFbh?= =?us-ascii?q?zoNgmEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYowgQmCUYF/hV0FhlOJFIU3hWs?= =?us-ascii?q?4AY0TSYQFi2SFCYobhEGEEgEfOIFEFTqENxyBYHOHdIENAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,249,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="374063755" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Jan 2017 13:16:30 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0IDGTiR032443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:16:30 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:16:29 -0500 Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:16:29 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: Derek Yeung , Xufeng Liu , "Jeff Tantsura" , Stig Venaas , "Toerless Eckert" , Jeff Haas Thread-Topic: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions Thread-Index: AQHSZikVdy93aWSv50OXVz0/eCxEhw== Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:16:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20161114021606.GA19529@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3E3FC0E5-528C-4FFF-8CE6-6770C8C3476F@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.201] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org" , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:16:34 -0000 All,=20 I spoke to Reshad Rahman (BFD YANG Model editor) regarding the BFD model yesterday and he assured me that the current model with the BFD session parameters centrally (as opposed to within the protocols) will be maintained. Consequently, I think OSPF can move to the IS-IS approach of a single BFD enabled interface leaf node conditioned with a BFD feature. Thanks, Acee On 1/13/17, 1:30 PM, "Derek Yeung" wrote: >OSPF model use augmentation module because of two reasons. >1) When OSPF first add BFD feature, the BFD model is not stable and we >want to isolate the OSPF base model from it. >2) It the earlier BFD model, the per protocol configuration is supported >and there is a BFD grouping (bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms) that OSPF need >to use. See draft-zheng-bfd-yang-04.txt. > >The per-protocol configuration is later removed from BFD and hence from >OSPF BFD model, leaving it with a single boolean leaf. >If it is confident that the BFD model is now stable, we could change OSPF >model to use feature with single boolean leaf instead. > >Thanks, >Derek > >On 1/4/17, 9:35 AM, "Xufeng Liu" wrote: > > During IETF at Seoul, this topic was brought to the attention of BFD >WG Chair, Jeff Haas ( cc'ed ). I think that BFD WG is currently working >on it, and will provide guidelines. > =20 > Thanks, > =20 > - Xufeng > =20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 8:23 PM > > To: Stig Venaas ; Toerless Eckert >; > > Acee Lindem (acee) ; derek@arrcus.com > > Cc: draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org; pim@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions > >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > I=B9d like to align at least IGP=B9s and PIM, > >=20 > > ISIS =AD bfd is a feature > > OSPF - defines module ietf-ospf-bfd > >=20 > > bfd containers: > > ospf: > > container bfd { > > description "BFD configuration."; > > leaf enable { > > type boolean; > > default false; > >=20 > > isis: > > container bfd { > > if-feature bfd; > > leaf enable { > > type boolean; > > default false; > >=20 > > including Acee and Derek > >=20 > > Cheers, > > Jeff > >=20 > >=20 > > On 1/3/17, 13:32, "pim on behalf of Stig Venaas" > > behalf of stig@venaas.com> wrote: > >=20 > > Hi > >=20 > > I agree we need to figure these things out. pim is not in a >unique > > position here, YANG models for other routing protocols must be >facing > > the same questions. The bfd wg is working a model too, right? >Perhaps > > discuss it in the bfd wg and work with those working on the >model > > there? > >=20 > > Alternatively we could remove bfd from our models for now. They >could > > be added by a later RFC if a standard is needed. > >=20 > > Stig > >=20 > >=20 > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Toerless Eckert > wrote: > > > To follow up on the questions i had on the mike on Seoul@PIM: > > > > > > Can you pls. point me to a place that defines how BFD has to >work if > > > two different protocols on the same interface are configured >for differrnt > > > local-multiplier, desired-min-tx, required-min-rx-interval >and the like. > > > > > > I hope thats specified in some BFD RFC/draft, but i couldn't >find it browsing > > > them. > > > > > > Also: In Seoul, it was said that some vendors have >configuration of these > > > parameters on a per-protocol basis. WOuld love a pointer >toward any single > > > vendor doc about that. > > > > > > If these parameters can be configured underneath a particular >protocol > > > (like PIM/BFD), why then should these parameters be "ro" >instead of "rw" ? > > > > > > Last but not least: Given how there is no PIM-BFD specific >"protocol spec" > > out > > > of PIM or MBoned, it looks to me as if all this discussion is >probavbly better > > > done in BFD working group, and they should suggest the >parameters that > > > can be configured. > > > > > > draft-ietf-ospf-yang has a section about BFD which seems to >primarily > > > care about making OSPF-BFD in the OSPF-YANG model optional. I >think > > > it would be prudent to do the same for PIM-BFD. On the other >hand, even > > the > > > OSPF-BFD definition does not seem to define these parameters. >So maybe > > > lets try to figur eout the best of what OSPF-BFD will >ultimately do > > > and then copy to PIM - unless we figure out reasons to go >beyond that > > approach. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Toerless > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pim mailing list > > > pim@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > pim mailing list > > pim@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > >=20 > >=20 > =20 > =20 > From nobody Wed Jan 18 10:27:41 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210A8129555 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:27:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kDfKg69hp9er for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt0-f174.google.com (mail-qt0-f174.google.com [209.85.216.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAB3E1294E3 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x49so22758955qtc.2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:27:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BvrynQgqvrZtg5Qi5nd3uKz+0hNXoCL8QPPVPSTsCSA=; b=fmyrQKPQ6kW+8HNQ4BItB2Dmy21UQYa98afe0d178RMqWusvPntmeZ9cFWfKI/vzqo 4pV/fUZjrjOajWW6ymdgEMDEmE6rdf4+VlDkFgVu/lePLTWa+mwy28NBp32qG55+X6cU kCPbhWVS1YlRPoVcUESJgWjkR6Uyn1nArm8ihoUC91N9+dXVL4pp5LgtfG/dRTEqC4YI v2+QBpJHKAYOpQhW+8RWv0vRTRluzi1LQlle4bDFWZp4ppVJ2pJvwk0mrzJGuzKiCJyO X7UnAgWow0kgQmBGjcwpzUK/4fJxTKZ9+vnkrLpeQyTLOd/gQc3ZzcSNOsBRZ/TNOq/G GuAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BvrynQgqvrZtg5Qi5nd3uKz+0hNXoCL8QPPVPSTsCSA=; b=kjDKxJ1xKDC5y0+Ny3LaCepzrD7dsIM09eriwBd7+GvYaq30TsOp8vljigxzuK0Eqo lNv7eVjUXpsQzLuXBQFpV8i2JGNoaw/Jqm1NHbCn+CUuD1QERcqBGdzr77El8Z123wlF T9TZhxUTBWWytTSNiqZPT8pDi5Cv4c+O3GXuueJmVO/7w11phMO3plXikS80712HQdhO pzy9G4SS5ghQ9+qyZyr5RvsbHviPamV9nhHBb4HhPabN1T/fvG8qO1chwz2GK0fsATpk wDiwD5GtmcOXVeGsPXS2E5PVBlIDGCIxg7xgDaIxQJLSQCPAgPNE205W14sONYmeqJeV sjzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLJGeiIN/He6jmuhdMVkMtB7gd7wyp57vRPaMdVVbHVqHwkKyc6WtI59b06XYTSmOzaDtsaSL3VGuEcKg== X-Received: by 10.200.46.162 with SMTP id h31mr4026495qta.164.1484764057172; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:27:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.81.166 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:27:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20161114021606.GA19529@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3E3FC0E5-528C-4FFF-8CE6-6770C8C3476F@gmail.com> From: Stig Venaas Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:27:36 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: Jeff Haas , Xufeng Liu , "draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org" , Toerless Eckert , Derek Yeung , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:27:40 -0000 Hi That sounds reasonable to me. So I assume we should do the same for PIM the= n. Stig On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > All, > > I spoke to Reshad Rahman (BFD YANG Model editor) regarding the BFD model > yesterday and he assured me that the current model with the BFD session > parameters centrally (as opposed to within the protocols) will be > maintained. Consequently, I think OSPF can move to the IS-IS approach of = a > single BFD enabled interface leaf node conditioned with a BFD feature. > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On 1/13/17, 1:30 PM, "Derek Yeung" wrote: > >>OSPF model use augmentation module because of two reasons. >>1) When OSPF first add BFD feature, the BFD model is not stable and we >>want to isolate the OSPF base model from it. >>2) It the earlier BFD model, the per protocol configuration is supported >>and there is a BFD grouping (bfd-grouping-base-cfg-parms) that OSPF need >>to use. See draft-zheng-bfd-yang-04.txt. >> >>The per-protocol configuration is later removed from BFD and hence from >>OSPF BFD model, leaving it with a single boolean leaf. >>If it is confident that the BFD model is now stable, we could change OSPF >>model to use feature with single boolean leaf instead. >> >>Thanks, >>Derek >> >>On 1/4/17, 9:35 AM, "Xufeng Liu" wrote: >> >> During IETF at Seoul, this topic was brought to the attention of BFD >>WG Chair, Jeff Haas ( cc'ed ). I think that BFD WG is currently working >>on it, and will provide guidelines. >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Xufeng >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 8:23 PM >> > To: Stig Venaas ; Toerless Eckert >>; >> > Acee Lindem (acee) ; derek@arrcus.com >> > Cc: draft-ietf-pim-yang@ietf.org; pim@ietf.org >> > Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-yang-03: questions >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I=C2=B9d like to align at least IGP=C2=B9s and PIM, >> > >> > ISIS =C2=AD bfd is a feature >> > OSPF - defines module ietf-ospf-bfd >> > >> > bfd containers: >> > ospf: >> > container bfd { >> > description "BFD configuration."; >> > leaf enable { >> > type boolean; >> > default false; >> > >> > isis: >> > container bfd { >> > if-feature bfd; >> > leaf enable { >> > type boolean; >> > default false; >> > >> > including Acee and Derek >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Jeff >> > >> > >> > On 1/3/17, 13:32, "pim on behalf of Stig Venaas" >>> > behalf of stig@venaas.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi >> > >> > I agree we need to figure these things out. pim is not in a >>unique >> > position here, YANG models for other routing protocols must be >>facing >> > the same questions. The bfd wg is working a model too, right? >>Perhaps >> > discuss it in the bfd wg and work with those working on the >>model >> > there? >> > >> > Alternatively we could remove bfd from our models for now. They >>could >> > be added by a later RFC if a standard is needed. >> > >> > Stig >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Toerless Eckert >> wrote: >> > > To follow up on the questions i had on the mike on Seoul@PIM: >> > > >> > > Can you pls. point me to a place that defines how BFD has to >>work if >> > > two different protocols on the same interface are configured >>for differrnt >> > > local-multiplier, desired-min-tx, required-min-rx-interval >>and the like. >> > > >> > > I hope thats specified in some BFD RFC/draft, but i couldn't >>find it browsing >> > > them. >> > > >> > > Also: In Seoul, it was said that some vendors have >>configuration of these >> > > parameters on a per-protocol basis. WOuld love a pointer >>toward any single >> > > vendor doc about that. >> > > >> > > If these parameters can be configured underneath a particular >>protocol >> > > (like PIM/BFD), why then should these parameters be "ro" >>instead of "rw" ? >> > > >> > > Last but not least: Given how there is no PIM-BFD specific >>"protocol spec" >> > out >> > > of PIM or MBoned, it looks to me as if all this discussion is >>probavbly better >> > > done in BFD working group, and they should suggest the >>parameters that >> > > can be configured. >> > > >> > > draft-ietf-ospf-yang has a section about BFD which seems to >>primarily >> > > care about making OSPF-BFD in the OSPF-YANG model optional. I >>think >> > > it would be prudent to do the same for PIM-BFD. On the other >>hand, even >> > the >> > > OSPF-BFD definition does not seem to define these parameters. >>So maybe >> > > lets try to figur eout the best of what OSPF-BFD will >>ultimately do >> > > and then copy to PIM - unless we figure out reasons to go >>beyond that >> > approach. >> > > >> > > Cheers >> > > Toerless >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > pim mailing list >> > > pim@ietf.org >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > pim mailing list >> > pim@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim >> > >> > >> >> >> > From nobody Fri Jan 20 08:17:59 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15E1129C18; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:17:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ePgBxNshPapm; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:17:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D278129C17; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:17:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E1653B81279; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:17:49 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20170120161749.E1653B81279@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:17:49 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, pim@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [pim] RFC 8059 on PIM Join Attributes for Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Environments X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:17:58 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 8059 Title: PIM Join Attributes for Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Environments Author: J. Arango, S. Venaas, I. Kouvelas, D. Farinacci Status: Experimental Stream: IETF Date: January 2017 Mailbox: jearango@cisco.com, stig@cisco.com, kouvelas@arista.com, farinacci@gmail.com Pages: 9 Characters: 19562 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-06.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8059 DOI: 10.17487/RFC8059 This document defines two PIM Join/Prune attributes that support the construction of multicast distribution trees where the root and receivers are located in different Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) sites. These attributes allow the receiver site to select between unicast and multicast underlying transport and to convey the RLOC (Routing Locator) address of the receiver ETR (Egress Tunnel Router) to the control plane of the root ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router). This document is a product of the Protocols for IP Multicast Working Group of the IETF. EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC