Got it, thank you. It is clear from the ospf protocol point of view. Besr regards, Harish
On Wed, 16 Oct, 2024, 7:35 pm Acee Lindem, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Harish, > > On Oct 16, 2024, at 08:11, Harish R Prabhu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thank gou, Acee. I did notice the interface instance ID which was > mentioned in 5340 in the yang model. However, interface id was missing. > > The interface id isn’t configured in OSPFv3. It is normally the ifIndex > which comes from the ietf-interfaces.yang YANG module (RFC 8343). > > From RFC 5340: > > Interface ID > > Every interface is assigned an Interface ID, which uniquely > identifies the interface with the router. For example, some > implementations MAY be able to use the MIB-II IfIndex ([INTFMIB]) > as the Interface ID. The Interface ID appears in Hello packets > sent out the interface, the link-local-LSA originated by the > router for the attached link, and the router-LSA originated by the > router-LSA for the associated area. It will also serve as the > Link State ID for the network-LSA that the router will originate > for the link if the router is elected Designated Router. > The Interface ID for a virtual link is independent of the > Interface ID of the outgoing interface it traverses in the transit > area. > > > It is included in ietf-ospf.yang (RFC 9129) but as operational state: > > > leaf interface-id { > type uint32; > config false; > description > "OSPFv3 interface ID."; > } > } > > 5340 is clear about the protocol running on the link, rather than the > interfaces. > > But in that case, what is ths context of multiple interfaces discussion in > the RFC? An example use case will make it very clear to me. > > This is putting multiple interfaces on the same network - I’m not aware of > anyone who has implemented this. I’d deprecate it if I ever respin RFC 5340 > as a Draft Standard. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > Best regards, > Harish > > On Wed, 16 Oct, 2024, 3:42 pm Acee Lindem, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Oct 16, 2024, at 01:39, Harish R Prabhu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi experts, >> >> My question is with regards to the OSPF yang scheme. >> >> RFC 5340 allows configuring multiple interfaces on the same link. >> >> As per my understanding on a linux machine, >> >> eth0 can be a link >> IPv6 address A/B would be one interface >> IPv6 address C/D could be another interface. >> Is this understanding correct? >> >> If so, why can't I configure interfaces selectively on a link today? For >> example, I want only A/B to be part of OSPF routing, not the other one >> (using the above example).? The doubt arises because there is no address >> configuration parameter for OSPF interfaces. >> >> >> In OSPFv3, the protocol runs on the link and not a specific subnet. >> >> The instance ID is in the YANG model (RFC 9129). >> >> grouping ospfv3-interface-config { >> description >> "OSPFv3 interface-specific configuration state."; >> >> leaf instance-id { >> type uint8; >> default "0"; >> description >> "OSPFv3 instance ID."; >> } >> } >> >> >> Hope this helps, >> Acee >> >> >> >> >> >> Also as per 5340 interface id, and interface instance id is required for >> supporting multiple interfaces. But i do not see interface id in the yang >> specification. >> >> What am I missing? Maybe these are already answered previously in the >> mailing list. Please bear with me, appreciate the patience and answers from >> the experts. >> >> Thanks, >> Harish >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Harish R Prabhu >> -- >> Bangalore, India. >> [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
