Hi Juergen,
On 11/11/2015 12:13, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:28:57AM +0000, William Lupton wrote:
All,
We would much appreciate comments and suggestions on the question posed below.
[...]
Good question. Is this question comparable to IEEE 802.3 interfaces
and Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)? In the past, I think we have seen
different approaches and I am not sure there is agreement on a common
approach. For 802.3 MAUs, MAU details were modeled in data models
extending a single interface. For other technologies, interface
layering seemed to be more appropriate. It would be nice if there
would a common understanding how to model interface specifics
consistently but I am afraid we have no common model. The
ietf-interfaces module essentially allows both approaches. It leaves
it open, however, to decide which approach is appropriate.
I think that a further issue here is that different vendors may have
different ideas of how to model the layers. Some vendors have a single
interface representing both the physical and network layers, but other
vendors have two separate interfaces (which must have different names to
appear in if:interfaces) representing both layers (in some cases, if not
all). But any such ambiguity is surely going to make models harder to
use by operators, and hence it would be sensible if the standard IETF
models could define the expected interface layering behaviour for common
interface types, even if the base interface model(s) allow for
alternative interface layering architectures.
Cheers,
Rob
/js
PS: A pure layering approach would treat an IP interface as an
interface layered on top of say an IEEE 802.3 interface but
the ietf-ip module does not really force this since many
implementations do not expose this layering. If I would do
a clean slate design, I would likely, from a architectural
point of view, go with a layering approach.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
