"Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen" <[email protected]> writes: > Hello, > > I notice that the OSPF and ISIS YANG models > (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-yang-04> and > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-08>) each > defines its own augmentation to > /rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route that adds metric, > tag and route-type to the OSPF and ISIS YANG models.
Both IS-IS and OSPF define route-type but each uses a different enumeration type, so presumably their semantics are different as well. So I am not sure it is a good idea to define a common route-type in ietf-routing. What would be its type? I remember there was already a similar discussion about metric, too. Different protocols use metrics with different ranges and semantics, so the conclusion then was to leave the definition of metric to each protocol. Route tag is uint32 in all cases, so it could be added to ietf-routing. Lada > > Separately, I notice that the RIB extension YANG model > (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01>) also > defines a similar augmentation to > /rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:routes/rt:route that adds metric and tag > (but not route-type). > > Since it looks like the metric/tag/route-type augmentation is common to most > routing protocols, may I suggest that these attributes, metric, tag, and > route-type, be placed in the (base) routing YANG model > (<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-21>) instead of > individual routing protocols or even the RIB extension model? > > Thanks, > Helen -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
