Hello Reshad, while the I-D draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00 only specifies ::1/128 as IPv6 loopback address, RFC 8029 sections 2.1., 3.4.1.1.1., and 4.3. specify to use the IPv4 loopback range as IP4-mapped IPv6 addresses for IPv6 MPLS echo request UDP packets, not the IPv6 loopback address ::1/128.
This seems to be inconsistent to me. Best regards, Erik On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 01:39:02PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > I don't understand the comment "...implementation choice of one manufacturer." > > As for the details, see > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00 > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > On 2020-07-20, 4:47 AM, "netmod on behalf of tom petch" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > I am not a fan of loopback seeing it as the implementation choice of one > manufacturer. On the other hand, the IETF has defined documentation > addresses which many if not most writers of examples for YANG modules seem > unaware of so if we add anything, I would add those. > > Tom Petch > > From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> > Sent: 17 July 2020 20:25 > > - There was a request to add types for loopback addresses > (127.0.0.0/8 and ::1/128). > > - This is related to an effort to define a YANG module for MPLS LSP > Ping (RFC 8029) but the details are unclear, i.e., what is exactly > needed and how such a type will be used and whether there is a > common need for types for loopback addresses. > > - Proposal: do not add such types at this point in time > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
