Yingzhen hi! Lots of thanks for your email.
A few comments: 1. The problem I am trying to address is not EVPN-specific. As of this moment the following AFI/SAFI use "typed" NLRI: a. MCAST-VPN (RFC6514<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6514>) b. MCAST-VPLS (RFC7117<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7117>) * EVPN (RFC 7432, RFC 9136. RFC 9572) * BGP-LS (RFC 7752) * BGP CAR and BGP VPN CAR (BGP Color-Aware Routing draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-10>) IMHO and FWIW the need to specify NLRI-type specific rules in BGP policies is common for most (if not all) all these cases. 1. I agree that BGP-specific options regarding policies should be addressed in the BGP Policy module (Section 7.5 of the BGP YANG Model draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-17#section-7.5>). * However, I have not found any such definitions in this module, the only context in which it mentions route types is about iBGP vs. eBGP * I am adding the IDR WG and the authors of the BGP YANG Model draft to the list of addressees of this email. 2. It seems that RFC 9607 provides two ways to differentiate between iBGP and eBGP: * One is by defining identities bgp-internal and bgp-external derived from the basic proto-route-type * The other is by including bp:route-type enumeration as one of the BGP match conditions Since bp:route-type is imported from the above-mentioned BGP Policy Module, and since the imported definition contains that values internal and external, this looks problematic to me. Hopefully these notes clarify both the problem I am trying to address and my understanding of the current situation. Regards, Sasha From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 1:17 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: jefftant.i...@gmail.com; a...@cisco.com; xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com; rtgwg@ietf.org; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Routing policies for AFI/SAFI with "typed" NLRI in RFC 9067 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<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>> Date: Thursday, June 6, 2024 at 10:45 AM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Cc: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen...@futurewei.com>>, jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com> <jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>, a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com> <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>, xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com>>, rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org> <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 7:53:22 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>> Cc: yingzhen...@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen...@futurewei.com> <yingzhen...@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen...@futurewei.com>>; jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com> <jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com> <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>; xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com> <xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.i...@gmail.com>>; rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org> <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto: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<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<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
