Hi Sasha, BGP specific options regarding policy is defined in the BGP policy module. I haven’t looked at the EVPN YANG model for a while, but if it’s a EVPN only option, like EVPN NLRI type, it should be defined in the EVPN YANG model, or it can be done through an augmentation.
Thanks, Yingzhen From: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> Date: Thursday, June 6, 2024 at 10:45 AM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>, jefftant.i...@gmail.com <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>, a...@cisco.com <a...@cisco.com>, xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com>, rtgwg@ietf.org <rtgwg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Routing policies for AFI/SAFI with "typed" NLRI in RFC 9067 Robert, Again, lots of thanks! The expired EVPN Yang model dos not help IMHO: unless I am mistaken, it only deals with EVPN route types in the RIB, but not in the policies. Regards, Sasha Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 7:53:22 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> Cc: yingzhen...@futurewei.com <yingzhen...@futurewei.com>; jefftant.i...@gmail.com <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; a...@cisco.com <a...@cisco.com>; xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com>; rtgwg@ietf.org <rtgwg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Routing policies for AFI/SAFI with "typed" NLRI in RFC 9067 Is this a duplication? An error? Or something else? One is IBGP the other EBGP. > And how can I express a condition that refers to EVPN, > MCAST-VPN or BGP-LS (RFC 7752<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7752>) > routes of a > specific NLRI Type in a BGP policy? For EVPN there is also expired BESS draft which defines it a bit better: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07 There is openconfig model as well: https://www.netconfcentral.org/modules/openconfig-evpn-types/2021-06-16 + there is this mentioned route-type enum type .... Not too mention that quite likely vendors will often have their private extensions :) Bottom line is that you need your vendor's YANG models to on a per protocol basis to answer how to express this NLRI type condition. Best, R. 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
