Hey, This is when YANG model RFC fun begins :)
So for BGP we have two different route-types (ibgp vs ebgp) and route-type within NLRIs. Any YANG expert can correct me if my reading of this is wrong but the way I understand this is that the former is of type "identityref" and the latter is of type "enumeration". For identityref it is actually well explained in the RFC, but I failed to find any explanation for route-type of "enumeration" type. Logically enumeration would mean 1..2..3 ..4...5 etc ... so exactly what would be required to recognize EVPN route-types. Best, Robert PS. A bit outside of your question I do not feel that comfortable with typed NLRIs considering no capability negotiation. Perhaps it would be useful to enhance BGP capabilities with NLRI types at some point. The obvious issue is that we would need dynamic capabilities for that to be practical and operationally deployable. On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:42 PM Alexander Vainshtein < alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote: > Robert, > > Lots of thanks for a prompt response. > > > > The examples that I see in the RFC refer to protocol-specific route types > (like IS-IS Level 1 or Level 2). > > I am not sure the RFC covers “typed NLRI”. Do I miss something? > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 6, 2024 6:23 PM > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> > *Cc:* yingzhen...@futurewei.com; jefftant.i...@gmail.com; a...@cisco.com; > xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com; rtgwg@ietf.org > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: Routing policies for AFI/SAFI with "typed" NLRI > in RFC 9067 > > > > Hi Sasha, > > > > But the RFC9067 supports route type match under policy definitions so I am > not sure what the question is :) > > > > > > | +--rw match-route-type > > | +--rw route-type* identityref > > | +--rw bp:bgp-conditions > > | +--rw bp:med-eq? uint32 > > | +--rw bp:origin-eq? bt:bgp-origin-attr-type > > | +--rw bp:next-hop-in* inet:ip-address-no-zone > > | +--rw bp:afi-safi-in* identityref > > | +--rw bp:local-pref-eq? uint32 > > * | +--rw bp:route-type? enumeration* > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:51 PM Alexander Vainshtein < > alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have looked up RFC 9067 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9067> > in order to understand whether it supports ability to define > NRLI-type-specific conditions in policies that are applied to AFI/SAFI that > use “typed” NLRI, and I did not find anything relevant. > > > > I wonder if the need for such conditions have ever been considered. If > not, can somebody please explain why? > > > > One example that comes to my mind is a policy that would apply specific > actions to IP Prefix (EVPN Type 5, RFC 9136 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9136>) routes with a specific > destination while ignoring EVPN routes of other types. > > > > For comparison, Section 5.4 of RFC 7606 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7606#section-5.4> defines > dedicated rules for handling the situations in which a BGP speaker supports > only some, but not all NLRI in a given “typed” AFI/SAFI. > > > > Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated. > > > > Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, > > Sasha > > > > > > *Disclaimer* > > This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of > Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or > proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without > express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, > including any attachments. > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
