> 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
