Subject: Re: [Teas] IETF TE Topology YANG Model Design Meeting Notes - 2016-08-22

From: Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:00:25 +0000

Participants:
Igor, Xufeng, Anurag, Oscar, Pavan

- Make LLCL entry as rich as connectivity entry, to have enough TE
  information for path computation.
  > We are proposing the following changes:

      +--rw tunnel-termination-point* [tunnel-tp-id]
         +--rw tunnel-tp-id    binary
         +--rw config
         |  +--rw switching-capability?     identityref
         |  +--rw encoding?                 identityref
         |  +--rw inter-layer-lock-id?      uint32
         |  +--rw protection-type?          identityref
         |  +--rw termination-capability* [link-tp]
         |     +--rw link-tp                            leafref
         |     +--rw label-restriction* [inclusive-exclusive label-start]
         |     |  +--rw inclusive-exclusive    enumeration
         |     |  +--rw label-start            te-types:generalized-label
         |     |  +--rw label-end?             te-types:generalized-label
         |     |  +--rw range-bitmap?          binary
         |     +--rw max-lsp-bandwidth* [priority]
         |     |  +--rw priority     uint8
         |     |  +--rw bandwidth?   decimal64
         |     +--rw time-division-multiplex-capable
         |     |  +--rw minimum-lsp-bandwidth?   decimal64
         |     |  +--rw indication?              enumeration
+         |     +--rw max-link-bandwidth?                decimal64
+         |     +--rw max-resv-link-bandwidth?           decimal64
+         |     +--rw unreserved-bandwidth* [priority]
+         |     |  +--rw priority     uint8
+         |     |  +--rw bandwidth?   decimal64
+         |     +--rw te-default-metric?                 uint32
+         |     +--rw performance-metric {te-performance-metric}?
+         |     |  +--rw measurement
+         |     |  |  +--rw unidirectional-delay?                 uint32
+         |     |  |  +--rw unidirectional-min-delay?             uint32
+         |     |  |  +--rw unidirectional-max-delay?             uint32
+         |     |  |  +--rw unidirectional-delay-variation?       uint32
+         |     |  |  +--rw unidirectional-packet-loss?           decimal64
+         |     |  |  +--rw unidirectional-residual-bandwidth?    decimal64
+         |     |  |  +--rw unidirectional-available-bandwidth?   decimal64
+         |     |  |  +--rw unidirectional-utilized-bandwidth?    decimal64
+         |     |  +--rw normality
+         |     |     +--rw unidirectional-delay?                 te-types:performance-metric-normality
+         |     |     +--rw unidirectional-min-delay?             te-types:performance-metric-normality
+         |     |     +--rw unidirectional-max-delay?             te-types:performance-metric-normality
+         |     |     +--rw unidirectional-delay-variation?       te-types:performance-metric-normality
+         |     |     +--rw unidirectional-packet-loss?           te-types:performance-metric-normality
+         |     |     +--rw unidirectional-residual-bandwidth?    te-types:performance-metric-normality
+         |     |     +--rw unidirectional-available-bandwidth?   te-types:performance-metric-normality
+         |     |     +--rw unidirectional-utilized-bandwidth?    te-types:performance-metric-normality
+         |     +--rw te-srlgs
+         |        +--rw value*   te-types:srlg

- Clean up notifications
  We currently have notifications for te-node and te-link. These
  notifications are covered by draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push and
  draft-gonzalez-netconf-5277bis.
  We will remove these notifications from te-topology model.
  > Done.

- Move key attributes to immediate under list, to facilitate xpath
  query by alternate keys.
  We received comments from an implementer, describing that the
  provider-id, client-id, and te-topology-id could not be used as a
  filter in Xpath statements to query TE node/link attributes, because of
  the extra container "te" under /nw:networks/nw:network. To improve
  the usability of the model. We are making the following changes:

augment /nw:networks/nw:network:
+   +--rw provider-id?      te-types:te-global-id
+   +--rw client-id?        te-types:te-global-id
+   +--rw te-topology-id?   te-types:te-topology-id
    +--rw te!
-      +--rw provider-id       te-types:te-global-id
-      +--rw client-id         te-types:te-global-id
-      +--rw te-topology-id    te-types:te-topology-id

augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node:
+   +--rw te-node-id?   te-types:te-node-id
    +--rw te!
-      +--rw te-node-id                  te-types:te-node-id

augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/nt:termination-point:
+   +--rw te-tp-id?   te-types:te-tp-id
    +--rw te!
-      +--rw te-tp-id    te-types:te-tp-id

- Discussed the use case of Hierarchy TE tunnel.
  > Identified the missing information (underlay-tunnel-id) in a TE link object.
  > Agreed to add underlay tunnel-id to te-link.
  > Proposing the following changes:

augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nt:link:
   +--rw te!
      +--rw config
      |  +--rw te-link-attributes
      |     +--rw underlay! {te-topology-hierarchy}?
      |     |  +--rw underlay-primary-path
      |     |  |  +--rw provider-id-ref?      leafref
      |     |  |  +--rw client-id-ref?        leafref
      |     |  |  +--rw te-topology-id-ref?   leafref
      |     |  |  +--rw network-id-ref?       leafref
      |     |  |  +--rw path-element* [path-element-id]
      |     |  |     +--rw path-element-id     uint32
      |     |  +--rw underlay-trail-src
      |     |  |  +--rw tp-ref?        leafref
      |     |  |  +--rw node-ref?      leafref
      |     |  |  +--rw network-ref?   leafref
      |     |  +--rw underlay-trail-des
      |     |     +--rw tp-ref?        leafref
      |     |     +--rw node-ref?      leafref
      |     |     +--rw network-ref?   leafref
      +--ro state
         +--ro te-link-attributes
         |  +--ro underlay! {te-topology-hierarchy}?
         |  |  +--ro underlay-primary-path
         |  |  |  +--ro provider-id-ref?      leafref
         |  |  |  +--ro client-id-ref?        leafref
         |  |  |  +--ro te-topology-id-ref?   leafref
         |  |  |  +--ro network-id-ref?       leafref
         |  |  |  +--ro path-element* [path-element-id]
         |  |  |     +--ro path-element-id     uint32
         |  |  +--ro underlay-backup-path* [index]
         |  |  |  +--ro index                 uint32
         |  |  +--ro underlay-protection-type?   uint16
-         |  |  +--ro underlay-trail-src
+         |  |  +--ro underlay-tunnel-src
         |  |  |  +--ro tp-ref?        leafref
         |  |  |  +--ro node-ref?      leafref
         |  |  |  +--ro network-ref?   leafref
-         |  |  +--ro underlay-trail-des
+         |  |  +--ro underlay-tunnel-des
         |  |     +--ro tp-ref?        leafref
         |  |     +--ro node-ref?      leafref
         |  |     +--ro network-ref?   leafref
+         |  |  +--ro underlay-tunnel-id?   uint16

- Discussed the operator requirement to have the geo-location on node and
  link-tp (3 GPS values)
  > Agreed to add to the model
  > Propose next time and discuss.

- There will be no meeting next week on Sept 5, because of US holiday.

Thanks,

- Xufeng

Note: Please drop me an email if you need an invite for joining the weekly call.