Hi Alex,
Thanks for the support and comments.
Please see inline ...
On 21/12/2016 00:08, Alex Campbell wrote:
Yes/support
The main issue I have with this draft, that I would like to be addressed at
some point, is the way it uses heavily restricted lists to model sequences of
VLAN tags.
It seems to me that something like the following would be much simpler, without
losing any expressive power, in most cases:
container tags {
leaf s-vlan {
type dot1q:dot1q-vlan-id;
}
leaf c-vlan {
type dot1q:dot1q-vlan-id;
}
must "s-vlan or c-vlan";
}
where either or both tags can be specified, and only specified tags are matched
(so if no c-vlan is specified then c-vlan is irrelevant for matching).
The using a list structure was intended to serve a couple of purposes:
(1) To easily allow the implementations to extend to more than 2 tags if
required in the future.
(2) Using lists also provides quite a clean way that the model could be
augmented to classify on the CoS bits or DEI bit. Specifically it
logically groups the data together.
Alternatively, maybe the restrictions relating to tag type and order should be
removed, so that if I *want* to have an unusual device configuration (such as
pushing 3 consecutive c-vlan tags) then I am able to do so.
The restrictions are in there to ensure good interoperability with IEEE
802.1Q compliant bridges. Part of the agreement with the IEEE 802.1Q WG
to get consent from them to allow this draft to proceed was to ensure
and emphasize good interoperability with IEEE technologies, particularly
given that they own the 0x8100 and 0x88a8 Ethertypes.
Of course, there is nothing preventing a vendor deviation to remove some
of those restrictions.
Also, ietf-if-l3-vlan contains a feature (l3-vlan-sub-interfaces) that gates
everything in the module. This is pointless IMO. If a server doesn't support L3
vlan subinterfaces then it should not implement the module (whose entire
purpose is to model L3 vlan subinterfaces).
Yes, I agree that feature looks like it is redundant in this case and
should be removed.
Thanks,
Rob
Alex
________________________________________
From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Lou Berger
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2016 12:31 p.m.
To: NetMod WG
Cc: NetMod WG Chairs
Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-04
All,
This is start of a two week* poll on making
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-04 a NetMod working group
document.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like
to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
* Given the holiday, the poll ends December 28.
Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
