Reshad: 

 

Thank you for quick response.   However, I’m confused.   Where do you see the 
IP address in the Yang snippet I sent?  It is a MAC Address (type 
yang:mac-address)?  If the system port allows IP, it will respond to the ARP 
request with the appropriate IP/MAC match in an ARP reply.   

 

In real implementations I2rs implementers examined, 

·         L2 port with mgmt-mac-address seems to be used to only send LLDP 
packets, 

·         L2 port with sys-mac-address seems to be used for management using 
TCP/IP.  

 

If we swap the names, it did not work with the initial implementers of the yang 
model.  The  I2RS Topology models are used for operational management of 
switches and routers as logical units. 

 

Also, your response does not seem to match my questions: 

 

1) Is this the normal assumption for yang models? 

2) If not, what is the normal assumption on system mac addresses? 

3) Am I correct that switches with more than 1 system MAC will augment their 
basic yang model with the second system MAC Address? 

 

I’m sorry to bother you but this document is being reviewed by the IESG  
tomorrow (Thursday) and 

I am the shepherd.  I do not know how to answer some of the yang related 
questions regarding multiple system ports to exchange management configuration 
on.  

 

I had thought that netconf/restconf would be exchanged over the same ports so 
the yang doctors would know what the normal custom should be. 

 

Thanks again! 

 

Sue  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrah...@cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:27 AM
To: Susan Hares; yang-doct...@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: martin.vigour...@nokia.com; 'Benjamin Kaduk'
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology

 

Hi,

 

So sys-mac-address is supposed to be the MAC address of the mgmt port, i.e. the 
device would respond to an ARP request for management-address with 
sys-mac-address? I think use of term system might be a bit misleading if that’s 
the case, mgmt-mac-address might be better.

 

Also, it is odd to have an IP address in an L2 grouping.

 

Disclaimer: not familiar with that draft at all, just took a look at the L2 
grouping.

 

Regards,

Reshad.

 

From: yang-doctors <yang-doctors-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares 
<sha...@ndzh.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 11:12 AM
To: "yang-doct...@ietf.org" <yang-doct...@ietf.org>, "i2rs@ietf.org" 
<i2rs@ietf.org>
Cc: "martin.vigour...@nokia.com" <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>, 'Benjamin Kaduk' 
<ka...@mit.edu>
Subject: [yang-doctors] draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology

 

The following question was asked by Ben Kaduk during IESG review of the 
following document: 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/

 

     grouping l2-node-attributes {

         [...]

         leaf sys-mac-address {

           type yang:mac-address;

           description

             "System MAC address.";

         }

 

If there are more than 1 system mac address in a switch, how would this model 
handle it. 

 

My understanding is that most switches have 1 system mac address for network 
management.  Therefore, the L2 topology model supports one. 

 

Question for Yang Doctors: 

 

1) Is this the normal assumption for yang models? 

2) If not, what is the normal assumption on system mac addresses? 

 

3) Am I correct that switches with more than 1 system MAC will augment their 
basic yang model with the second system MAC Address. 

 

Thank you, Susan Hares 

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to