> Thanks for pointing to the definitions in draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang. > With that, your request is relatively clear now
Looking at draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang, the proposal is a “typedef” that constrains inet:ipv[46]-address so that it can only contain loopback address values. > and the question the WG > needs to answer is whether these types are common enough to warrant being > part of inet-types, i.e., are there any other places where these types > may be useful? I don’t think so, but I’m not a routing person. > /js K. // contributor _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
