The router id in this I-D confuse me.
RFC8294 defines
typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad;
ospf-yang defines
leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address;
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types defines
typedef te-node-id { type yang:dotted-quad;
... This attribute is mapped to Router ID ....
Three different YANG types for a router id.
Why?
Behind this, ospf-yang gives as references for a router te id
RFC3630(V2) and RFC5329(V3). Reading these, my take is that a router id
is needed for te but that the existing id should be used where possible
i.e. creating an additional identifier for the same instance of the same
entity is A Bad Thing (which sounds like a good general principle).
With two objects in the lsr protocols, that would appear to make at
least three identifiers for the same instance of the same entity.
Why?
I copy Stephane on this since the same issues apply to the other lsr
protocol, mutatis mutandi.
Tom Petch
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
