At the moment, I would say that the vast majority of the definitions in IANA.yang are just noise because they refer to definitions that are obsolete.  Our OS seems to use only 10% of the 287+ defined IANA types, and that 10% includes technologies such as frame relay, serial, atm, that very much seem to be on their way out.

Using hierarchical identities and interface properties seems like a reasonable solution to me (e.g. as described in draft-wilton-netmod-interface-properties-00).  E.g. so rather than having configuration with a direct when statement on a specific list of interface types, instead the when statement can depend on the appropriate interface properties.


I also like Lada's suggestion of trying to spread out the IANA definitions to the modules that are defining the technology.  So, if a device implements support for PPP configuration/operational state then it would also naturally define any PPP related interface identities at the same time.

If a vendor wants to define their own flavour of Ethernet interface then they can do so in their vendor specific module without requiring all tooling to become aware of it, and allowing the existing Ethernet configuration to work as normal.



On 06/04/2018 13:01, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Fri, 2018-04-06 at 13:36 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:51:48AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes:

If we would have a mechanism to deviate an identityref to a subset of
identity values supported by an implementation, we would have solved a
more generic problem. Yes, the IANA list could be 'nicer' but it will
never be 'nice'.
Three mechanisms can be used for this:

- splitting the identities into separate modules
Whatever module organization you come up with, it won't work for all
implementations.
Yes, getting the root of this structure right is perhaps somewhat tricky, but I don't think that it needs to be all encompassing, or perfect.

- using features
Making every identity a feature will turn the feature system upside
down. This is similar to making every leaf a feature.

- using deviations (even though vendors frown on them)
If my implementation only supports A and B and C, then a deviation may
state exactly that and the problem is solved. Hoping that my specific
In fact, deviations cannot delete identity values because they aren't schema
nodes, so they are of no use.

combination of A and B and C matches a set of modules or some set of
features is in my view an illusion.
An implementation that supports, say, a given type of tunnel interface will
implement the module that covers this tunnel type. If the identity for this
tunnel interface type is defined in the same module, then all is good. I don't
get why this should be an illusion. On the contrary, I think it is the cleanest
available solution to this conformance specification problem.

Vendors not shipping proper deviations are essentially telling their
customers that they have not yet understood model driven management.
We need to change the mindset here instead of polluting our data
models with hundreds or thousands of fine grained 'features'.
I agree that zillions of features aren't nice but it seems to be the only
solution that we currently have for modules of the iana-if-type style.

Having an bulky set of identity values, most of which are of no interest, is IMO
much worse and could also be a security issue if implementors aren't careful
enough.
I'm not sure there is a security concern here, but a long list where most of the values are cruft doesn't really seem to help anyone.  It also makes it harder to know which is the right type to use.  E.g. will everyone know that they should use "ethernetCsmacd" rather than "gigabitEthernet" for an optical GE interface that doesn't actually use CSMA/CD ...

Thanks,
Rob



Lada

/js


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

Reply via email to