Subject: [mpls] YANG Data Model for MPLS LDP and mLDP

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:15:03 +0000

Folks,

Tuesday evening, at the joint TEAS/MPLS/PCE meeting, Rajiv presented the work he and his co-authors had done on a draft related to MPLS LDP and mLDP.  

The draft is at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang  (or at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang).

The slides can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-teas-14.pptx 

Afterwards, several people discussed the fact that there is something not-quite right about the definition of "peer" they would be using in their models.

Specifically, while the definitions shown are closely related to the definitions originally used in RFC 5036 (and RFC 3036 before that), they do not quite fit when considering LDP graceful restart (RFC 3478) - because the peer relationship survives the session relationship when using graceful restart - i.e. - the labels distributed by a peer remain valid for some time after the session ends. In fact, with LDP graceful restart, the intention is that the labels previously distributed by the peer would remain valid until explicitly withdrawn in the next (or a subsequent) session.

After some discussion, both after the meeting and earlier today, it seems likely this may be only one example of a case where the draft may not adequately address the implications of LDP graceful restart.

--
Eric Gray

Sent from my iPad