Adding config container for LACP member interface with port-priority

[marius-ore]

Hi, I don’t see a way to configure a member interface’s priority in a LAG (or configure anything else for an LACP member interface, as there is no config container under /lacp/interfaces/interface[name]/members/member[interface]). I’m wondering if it would be ok to add a config container for member interfaces with port-priority, as well as the port-priority and partner-port-priority leaves under member state:

  +--rw lacp
     +--rw interfaces
     |  +--rw interface*  [name]
     |  |  +--rw members
-     |  |  |  +--ro member*  [interface]
-     |  |  |  |  +--ro interface    -> ../state/interface  
+     |  |  |  +--rw member*  [interface]
+     |  |  |  |  +--rw interface    -> ../config/interface
+     |  |  |  |  +--rw config
+     |  |  |  |  |   +--rw interface     oc-if:base-interface-ref
+     |  |  |  |  |   +--rw port-priority     uint16
     |  |  |  |  +--ro state
+     |  |  |  |  |   +--ro port-priority     uint16
+     |  |  |  |  |   +--ro partner-port-priority     uint16

Vendor examples for the configuration:

Arista, section "Configuring Port Priority":
https://www.arista.com/en/um-eos/eos-port-channels-and-lacp

Cisco, section "Configuring the LACP System ID and Port Priority":
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2sb/feature/guide/gigeth.html

[robshakir]

The configuration for aggregation has generally been under /interfaces/interface/aggregation. Currently, /lacp/members/member is a read-only container. It's worth discussing how we want to support this -- it does seem changing this to config true might be the best approach, but I don't think there's precedent for such a change.

[dplore]

Another way to do it is set port-priority under /interfaces/interface/aggregation, as it is a property of an interface. This is how at least 3 references do it. (the two above, plus JunOS port-priority.

I agree it's somewhat arbitrary where to place this configuration.

[earies]

+1 - is best to create a uint16 leaf under the grouping aggregation-logical-config in openconfig-if-aggregate.yang for this imo

+--rw interfaces
   +--rw interface* [name]
      +--rw oc-lag:aggregation
         +--rw oc-lag:config
         |  +--rw oc-lag:lag-type?    aggregation-type
         |  +--rw oc-lag:min-links?   uint16
         +--ro oc-lag:state
         |  +--ro oc-lag:lag-type?    aggregation-type
         |  +--ro oc-lag:min-links?   uint16
         |  +--ro oc-lag:lag-speed?   uint32
         |  +--ro oc-lag:member*      oc-if:base-interface-ref

[marius-ore]

Thanks everyone for your responses! It looks like the attributes under /interfaces/interface[name]/aggregation/config refer to an aggregate logical interface, whereas port-priority refers to the priority of a physical interface in its aggregate interface. What if instead, I add port-priority to /interfaces/interface[name]/ethernet/config and /interfaces/interface[name]/ethernet/state? I'm also thinking of keeping port-priority and partner-port-priority under /lacp/interfaces/interface[name]/members/member[interface]/state.

So then my changes would look like:

@@ -12,5 +12,7 @@ module: openconfig-if-aggregate
           +--ro member*      oc-if:base-interface-ref
   augment /oc-if:interfaces/oc-if:interface/oc-eth:ethernet/oc-eth:config:
     +--rw aggregate-id?                -> /oc-if:interfaces/interface/name
+    +--rw aggregation-port-priority?   uint16
   augment /oc-if:interfaces/oc-if:interface/oc-eth:ethernet/oc-eth:state:
     +--ro aggregate-id?                -> /oc-if:interfaces/interface/name
+    +--ro aggregation-port-priority?   uint16

@@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ module: openconfig-lacp
                     +--ro port-num?                uint16
                     +--ro partner-port-num?        uint16
                     +--ro last-change?             oc-types:timeticks64
+                    +--ro port-priority?           uint16
+                    +--ro partner-port-priority?   uint16
                     +--ro counters
                        +--ro lacp-in-pkts?               oc-yang:counter64
                        +--ro lacp-out-pkts?              oc-yang:counter64

[earies]

Actually yes, you are correct on the first part - the port-priority is more well suited in parallel to the aggregate-id under the physical ethernet config/state and not under the aggregation container that is rather gated for the logical bundle interface.

when "oc-if:config/oc-if:type = 'ianaift:ieee8023adLag'"

Now a container to bucketize aggregation related parameters is probably worth exploring under ethernet. aggregate-id as-is today can be deprecated + relocated under this container and nodes specific to the LACP protocol could be called out as such giving expansion for any other possible parameters (link protection/static, etc..)

For the latter on LACP member priority placement for state, that LGTM

[dplore]

Agreed on using the ethernet subtree and given there are >=2 values, then adding a container is a reasonable option.

interfaces
    interface
       ethernet
            aggregation
                port-priority
                aggregate-id

I'll also second Ebben's recommendation to use status deprecated for the port-priority leaf which is being removed (moved to the container)

[dplore]

I believe this was fixed in #943