Hi, authors:
In RFC8529, the bind-network-instance-name leaf provides the association
between an interface and its associated NI.
However it is not clear to me why the same association between Ipv4/Ipv6 type
and its association NI
Should be provided as well? See model structure snippet defined in RFC8529 as
follows:
"
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface:
+--rw bind-ni-name? -> /network-instances/network-instance/name
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4:
+--rw bind-ni-name? -> /network-instances/network-instance/name
augment /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv6:
+--rw bind-ni-name? -> /network-instances/network-instance/name
"
So the question is
Can we add different NI name for IPv4/IPv6 type? Isn't IPv4 type and IPv6 type
and interface pointing to the same NI name?
Why IPv4 type and IPv6 type in IP data model can not inherit the same NI name
from the interface model since IP Data model is an extension to Interface Data
Model?
Suppose we configure interface and associated IP addresses and assign this
interface to a NI,
Which configuration snippet is correct:
Option A:
{
"name": "eth1",
"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
"ietf-ip:ipv4": {
"address": [
{
"ip": "192.0.2.11",
"prefix-length": 24
}
]
"ietf-network-instance:bind-network-instance-name": "vrf-red"
},
"ietf-ip:ipv6": {
"address": [
{
"ip": "2001:db8:0:2::11",
"prefix-length": 64
}
]
"ietf-network-instance:bind-network-instance-name": "vrf-red"
},
"ietf-network-instance:bind-network-instance-name": "vrf-red"
},
Option B:
{
"name": "eth1",
"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
"ietf-ip:ipv4": {
"address": [
{
"ip": "192.0.2.11",
"prefix-length": 24
}
]
},
"ietf-ip:ipv6": {
"address": [
{
"ip": "2001:db8:0:2::11",
"prefix-length": 64
}
]
},
"ietf-network-instance:bind-network-instance-name": "vrf-red"
},
-Qin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
