Hi Chris,
We made this change in -41.
Thanks,
Acee
On 10/8/19, 6:14 AM, "Christian Hopps" <cho...@chopps.org> wrote:
should have read "or it supports more than 32"
> On Oct 8, 2019, at 5:53 AM, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote:
>
> This strikes me as one of these artificial limits that gains us almost
nothing (what if the platform supports less than 32 or it supports 32?), and
creates these backward incompatible YANG issues (ranges that have to change)
that are part of what is driving the complexity in the YANG versioning stuff.
Why don't we just have a no range u16 or a 1..max range?
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>> On Oct 7, 2019, at 12:44 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> grouping spf-parameters {
>>> container spf-control {
>>> leaf paths {
>>> if-feature max-ecmp;
>>> type uint16 {
>>> range "1..32";
>>> }
>>
>> Why is this a uint16 rather than a uint8?
>>
>> It definitely could be uint8.
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
