Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added next-hop-network-instance under mpls egress config. #1219

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vishnureddybadveli
Copy link

@vishnureddybadveli vishnureddybadveli commented Nov 9, 2024

Change Scope
(M) release/models/mpls/openconfig-mpls-static.yang

Currently model does not support mpls route to a specific next hop network instance, we are adding support for network instance in which to resolve the next hop.

  • /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/ingress/config/next-hop-network-instance
  • /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/transit/config/next-hop-network-instance
  • /network-instances/network-instance/mpls/lsps/static-lsps/static-lsp/egress/config/next-hop-network-instance

Platform Implementations
Arista:
CLI configuration: mpls static top-label vrf pop payload-type ipv4/6

@vishnureddybadveli vishnureddybadveli requested a review from a team as a code owner November 9, 2024 02:29
@dplore
Copy link
Member

dplore commented Nov 12, 2024

/gcbrun

@OpenConfigBot
Copy link

No major YANG version changes in commit 3edb12b

@dplore dplore self-assigned this Nov 12, 2024
Copy link
Member

@dplore dplore left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please update the PR description to include why the change is being added and update the yang model version numbers.


revision "2024-11-12" {
description
"Added support for mpls route post decap to a specific
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please clarify this? What is post decap in this case?

In terms of mpls static LSPs, you have three different scenarios:

  1. ingress
  2. transit
  3. egress

Does decap implies the egress (where the top label is removed by a PE node, and the LSP is terminated)?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should remove post decap.
This is for egress LSPs.
The intent is to do a lookup for the nexthop (to determine egress interface and rewrite) in a vrf that is different from the ingress interface's VRF.
For example: in some vpc use case ingress interface is in the default VRF as it's facing the providers network and the egress interface is in a customer specific VRF.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. In that case, in addition to updating the description, I think this leaf should be moved from static-lsp-common-config to static-lsp-egress-config

@@ -217,6 +225,14 @@ submodule openconfig-mpls-static {
"Next hop IP address for the LSP";
}

leaf next-hop-network-instance {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As some of the attributes, for ex: next-hop, push-label & etc..., in this grouping are deprecated wondering if this should be part of lsp-next-hops container.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants