Hi Chris, From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 6:02 AM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>, Renato Westphal <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [email protected]: questions Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, Derek Yeung <[email protected]>, Jeffrey Zhang <[email protected]>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 6:02 AM
On Sep 7, 2022, at 17:05, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Renato, Thanks for you comments. However, at this point in the cycle, we’re not going to make any additions to the model since it is has already been through the complete review cycle. We will however fix things that are broken. See inline responses below. From: Renato Westphal <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 2:31 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>: questions Resent-From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Derek Yeung <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeffrey Zhang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-Date: Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 2:30 PM Hi all, I have a few questions about the OSPF YANG module. I apologize if some of these questions were already asked before, but I couldn't find anything in the mailing list archives. I also listed a few improvement suggestions, but I'm not sure if the draft can be updated at this point (it's status is listed as "RFC Ed Queue"). 1. /ietf-routing:routing/control-plane-protocols/control-plane-protocol/ietf-ospf:ospf/areas/area/interfaces OSPFv3 is known to run a per-link basis whereas OSPFv2 runs on a per-IP-subnet basis. So what does it mean to configure an interface for OSPFv2 operation? Should OSPFv2 run only on the interface primary address, or run separate OSPFv2 instances for each one of the interface addresses? The latter option doesn't seem viable since interfaces live under OSPF instances in the YANG hierarchy, but I'd like to hear what others think about this. We’re really only supporting the per-link configuration for both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 since this is what the vendors support. Per-subnet configuration could be added via augmentation. More than a couple vendors support range based configuration (for OSPFv2) probably stemming from a pretty old cisco i.e., https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_ospf/command/iro-cr-book/m_ospf-i1.html#wp2261032279 https://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/ospfd.html#clicmd-network-A.B.C.D-M-area-A.B.C.D maybe: https://www.arista.com/en/um-eos/eos-open-shortest-path-first-version-2#xx1153530 ... Vendors that didn't pattern themselves from original IOS configuration probably lack this configuration, though. If that's the case, perhaps it would be best to associate any augmentation with a feature (unless it's a standalone module I guess)? In the case of Cisco, it only applies to the primary address on the interface so it is essentially an indirect way to configure interfaces. GateD used to support subnet-based OSPFv2 configuration – I’m not sure if there are any vendors that started with GateD and retrained this behavior. Thanks, Acee Thanks, Chris. [as wg member] [...] Thanks, Acee Best Regards, -- Renato Westphal
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
