Hi Yingzhen, Apologies for my late reply. Please find my comments inline below.
Em ter., 22 de abr. de 2025 às 19:25, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> escreveu: > >> While updating the code, I noticed a few minor inconsistencies that I >> thought were worth sharing: >> * In the OSPF module, SIDs are always represented using a >> "label-value"/"index-value" choice. However, in some cases there's an >> additional "length" leaf, and in others, there isn't. >> * In the IS-IS module, SIDs are represented either as a simple "sid" >> leaf or as a "label-value"/"index-value" choice combined with a >> "length" field. > > [Yingzhen]: Thanks for catching this. I looked at RFC8667 and fixed the is-is > model to be consistent with OSPF. Thanks for the update! I see that the OSPF and IS-IS modules are now consistent. For both modules, I'm only unsure about the need of the "length" leaf under the "sid-sub-tlv" container of the "sid-sub-tlv" grouping: leaf length { type uint8; description "Length of the SID value. YANG model specification is necessary since it dictates the semantics of the SID."; } Since we already have a choice between label-value and index-value, this field might be redundant. If we decide to keep it, it might make sense to also include it for Prefix-SIDs and Adj-SIDs, so that all SID types are represented consistently. >> * In the IS-IS module, the "adjacency" list is augmented with a list >> of local Adjacency-SIDs ("adjacency-sid"). In the OSPF module, the >> "neighbor" list doesn't have a similar augmentation. Adjacency-SID >> information is only available in the LSDB. > > > [Yingzhen]: > do you mean the following in IS-IS? > > augment > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:interfaces/isis:interface/isis:adjacencies/isis:adjacency: > > +--ro adjacency-sid* [] > > +--ro value? uint32 > > +--ro address-family? iana-rt-types:address-family > > +--ro weight? uint8 > > +--ro protection-requested? boolean > > > This is an augmentation of operational state. You're right, we don't have > this in OSPF. I looked at RFC9129, this can be added to > ospf:interface/ospf:neighbors/ospf:neighbor. Unfortunately we have different > names in RFC9129 and 9130, neighbors vs. adjacencies. Yes, that's what I mean. I think adding Adj-SID information to ospf:interface/ospf:neighbors/ospf:neighbor would be useful. Best Regards, -- Renato Westphal _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
