> On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> On 3/28/17, 2:59 PM, "David Bannister" <d...@netflix.com 
> <mailto:d...@netflix.com>> wrote:
>  
> I would agree that the mix of L2 and L3 in the same operational ACL is a bit 
> out of the ordinary.  I could see where a combined approach may be appealing 
> to some.  As a network operator I do not see this as a negative.  It would be 
> nice to give the vendor the option to defer the L2/3 combination but it does 
> not look attainable in the current model.

I would agree with this assertion. A proposal in the works uses feature 
statements to let vendors decide which part of the model they want to support.

>  
> "augmented by each vendor"  There are many things missing in IETF models and 
> some things which are not under the IETF umbrella.  In this discussion the 
> first that comes to mind is an 802.x model.  It is good to see there is 
> currently an IEEE effort to develop one.  However, it does not exist today.  
> The various ether types are covered in some of the vendor models I have seen. 
>  We take the Newco example in the draft which typedefs an enum of 
> 'known-ether-type.'  Meanwhile Oldco is using a typedef of 'ethertype.'  Both 
> New and Old co both augment this draft. In this scenario the network operator 
> is stuck sorting out the logic in which vendor model to use and having to 
> deal with two data structures for the same entity (ether-type).   Using 
> models this way does nothing to simplify network coding and management.  I am 
> against augmentation from vendor models for common items but it is ok for 
> vendor unique items.  Ether-type is not vendor unique.  Augmentation has its 
> place but it appears to be overused even within the context of IETF only 
> models.

I would agree. Ideally, IEEE should take up definition of ether-types that are 
registered with them and define a ieee-ether-types.yang file. Adding a few 
folks from IEEE that I know who could look at this.

>  
> Not sure if pointing out ietf-routing was a good idea. Five years in the 
> making and 42 augmenting models. :-)
>  
> If we can get the well known IETF standardized missing bits from L3, L4 for 
> v4 and v6 into this it would work for me but I think the IETF may have missed 
> the boat on this one.
>  

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com



_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to