Dear OPSAWG colleagues,
Thanks for participating in the call last week in the L3NM and
L2NM module discussions.
Please find bellow the minutes. The presented material is available in
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/blob/master/Meetings/20200528/l3nm_20200428.pptx
* Date: 27th-May-2020
3NM and L2NM module discussions
* Date: 28-May-2020
* Participants
- Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (Telefonica)
- Samier Barguil (Telefonica)
- Italo Busi (Huawei)
- Adrian Farrel (Old Dog Consulting)
- Med Boucadair (Orange)
- Luis Muñoz (Vodafone)
- Haomian Zheng (Huawei)
1. Agenda
L3NM
- Service Types common module discussions: Proposal of
groupings/containers/identities subject to be part of these common types to
evaluate if it makes sense. issue
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/110 It is related to
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/32
- RT / RD autoasignment https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/114
and https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/20 and mailing list dicussions
- New issue: differentiate routing vs forwarding policy
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/113 Related to
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/18
- New issue: poionter to ietf routing policy?
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/117
- Cleaned issues solved in github long time ago but that had not been closed.
- Open issues to discuss for the June call
L2NM
- L2NM. Basic EVPN support. Need of expert reviewer.
- L2NM issues https://github.com/oscargdd/l2nm/issues
2. L3NM discussions
1. Service Types common module discussions: Proposal of
groupings/containers/identities subject to be part of these common types to
evaluate if it makes sense. issue
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/110 It is related to
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/32
- Oscar presents the common structures used between L3SM, L3NM and L2NM.
- Oscar Presents 1st proposal for common structures. To generate the vpn-types
modules.
- [ITALO]: Reconciliation with the CCAMP and the client SIgnal model and the
L2NM is still pending. Differences/similarities must be arisen.
- In ccamp the types are progressing in parallel with at least one draft
- [Med]: It will not remove complexity creating the common types. But it is
good to avoid the dependencies.
- [Med] If we go that path, we could have in addition to types, structures?
- [Med] In L2NM we started with similar structures. It is better not to
duplicate
- [Italo] In ccamp it is common types, but there are also groupings.
- [Med] Even for reviewing the documents, the split is good.
2. RT / RD autoasignment (not discussed, invite Roque to next call and follow
discussions in mailing list)
3. Discussion on policies.
[Oscar] Issue https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/113 proposes to
diffentiate forwarding policy (that is, policies aimed at the packets coming to
the interface) vs routing policies (aimed at the routing protocols, either
CE-PE or interally via MP-BGP)
[Oscar] Issue https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/117 asks if it is
ok to have just an id of the profile or add a leafref to where the actual
policy is defined.
[Oscar] Is forwarding profile useful?
[Med]. Separating forwarding from routing policy is fine.
[Oscar] Do we need to add a leafref to the profile itself?
[Med]. Having just an id is fine. If we need to add more, we need to be
consistent.
[Qin]. SUPA working group tried to abstract policies but failed. We understand
the use cases. The confusion is why is it called "forwarding policy".
[Adrian]. Caution about opening rattle. Have a simple in hook in the module (if
someone has implemented a policy module, go there). Just put a hook. Then, tell
the working groups working in policies.
[Med]: for the extension to ACL, go to Netmod. Or extend it (be specific)
[Luis]: avoid extending it here. If there is consensus on forwarding and
routing, ok, just add the hooks.
3 L2NM discussions
- L2NM. Basic EVPN support. Need of expert reviewer.
[Oscar] Presented issue https://github.com/oscargdd/l2nm/issues/1
[Qin] Will find internally EVPN experts.
[Oscar] Presented issue https://github.com/oscargdd/l2nm/issues/6
[Italo] There was a similar issue in TEAS. Check with Tarek and Igor.
Looking forward for the call on Thursday.
Oscar
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
proceda a sua destruição
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
