On 22.01.18 23:02, Alex Campbell wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Good point - adding on to that, I'd like to point out that there are > more protocols that use ports besides TCP and UDP, such as SCTP and DCCP. > If the port number was not protocol-specific then devices would also > have to match SCTP ports, DCCP ports, and other protocol ports, even > for protocols which haven't been invented yet. This is not possible to > implement. > > > Thus, if a very simple device can understand TCP and UDP ports but > cannot understand more detailed information, that is supported. > > > I don't think YANG features can possibly envision or handle all the > potential variations between devices, unless we give each criterion > its own separate feature. > > To my knowledge, the device I am currently working on doesn't support > port range matching, or operators other than 'equals', and I see there > is currently no YANG feature for that. > > Do you think it would be better to let vendors use deviations to > indicate which features aren't supported? >
Yes, and so I agreed to Mahesh's simpler change. Eliot > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Eliot Lear > <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, 23 January 2018 8:14 a.m. > *To:* Kent Watsen; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-15 > > > Hi Kent and Mahesh and Sonal, > > Thanks very much for working on this draft. I have noted one problem > that I think needs correcting. I come prepared with a diff. > > The current model has {source,dest}-port-or-range hanging off ipv4 or > ipv6. This is a transport parameter and is not appropriate for > protocols that do not use ports (ie, ICMP, ESP, etc). A better locale > would be to hang these components underneath l4 underneath their > respective tcp and udp branches. > > Because this is so basic a function, I propose that this *not* be > included in match-on-tcp or match-on-udp. Instead, the contents of > both tcp and udp be moved to new containers "tcp-all" and "udp-all", > respectively, and the ports hang as peers to that. Thus, if a very > simple device can understand TCP and UDP ports but cannot understand > more detailed information, that is supported. > > And so from a tree perspective, it would look like this: > > > | | +--rw (l4)? > | | | +--:(tcp) > | | | | +--rw tcp > | | | | +--rw source-port-range-or-operator > | | | | | +--rw (port-range-or-operator)? > | | | | | +--:(range) > | | | | | | +--rw lower-port inet:port-number > | | | | | | +--rw upper-port inet:port-number > | | | | | +--:(operator) > | | | | | +--rw operator? operator > | | | | | +--rw port inet:port-number > | | | | +--rw destination-port-range-or-operator > | | | | | +--rw (port-range-or-operator)? > | | | | | +--:(range) > | | | | | | +--rw lower-port inet:port-number > | | | | | | +--rw upper-port inet:port-number > | | | | | +--:(operator) > | | | | | +--rw operator? operator > | | | | | +--rw port inet:port-number > | | | | +--rw tcp-all {match-on-tcp}? > | | | | +--rw sequence-number? uint32 > | | | | +--rw acknowledgement-number? uint32 > | | | | +--rw data-offset? uint8 > | | | | +--rw reserved? uint8 > | | | | +--rw flags? bits > | | | | +--rw window-size? uint16 > | | | | +--rw urgent-pointer? uint16 > | | | | +--rw options? uint32 > | | | +--:(udp) > | | | | +--rw udp > | | | | +--rw source-port-range-or-operator > | | | | | +--rw (port-range-or-operator)? > | | | | | +--:(range) > | | | | | | +--rw lower-port inet:port-number > | | | | | | +--rw upper-port inet:port-number > | | | | | +--:(operator) > | | | | | +--rw operator? operator > | | | | | +--rw port inet:port-number > | | | | +--rw destination-port-range-or-operator > | | | | | +--rw (port-range-or-operator)? > | | | | | +--:(range) > | | | | | | +--rw lower-port inet:port-number > | | | | | | +--rw upper-port inet:port-number > | | | | | +--:(operator) > | | | | | +--rw operator? operator > | | | | | +--rw port inet:port-number > | | | | +--rw udp-all {match-on-udp}? > | | | | +--rw length? uint16 > > > A diff ietf-packet-fields.yang and ietf-access-control-lists.yang is > attached. > > Eliot > > > > On 17.01.18 22:55, Kent Watsen wrote: >> All, >> >> This starts a two-week working group last call on >> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-15. >> >> This working group last call ends on January 31st. >> Please send your comments to the NETMOD mailing list. >> >> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document >> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome! >> This is useful and important, even from authors. >> >> Also, could the authors, explicitly CC-ed on this email, >> please confirm at this time that they are unaware of >> any IPR related to this draft. >> >> Thank you, >> NETMOD Chairs >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
