From: Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]> Sent: 10 December 2022 13:48
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 12:41:15PM +0000, tom petch wrote: > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang models extended-tunnel-id as > inet:ip-address-no-zone > > The reference is RFC3209 which says that it is an IP address but > 'Normally set to all zeros.' > > My take is that an IP address in YANG cannot be all zeros, it will have > separators in it, and so this object needs to be modelled as a union or some > such. > Searching for "all zeros" in RFC 3209, I find this phrase related to the Extended Tunnel ID (twice) but not related to an IP address. Anyway, if it says somewhere that a 32-bit IPv4 address or a 128-bit IPv6 address is "all zeros", then the textual representations used by YANG are 0.0.0.0 and ::. <tp> Yeeees but looking at s2.5 I see "To uniquely identify a TE tunnel, we use the combination of the destination IP address (an address of the node which is the egress of the tunnel), a Tunnel ID, and the tunnel ingress node's IP address, which is placed in the Extended Tunnel ID field." s.4.6.1.1 goes on to say normally set to all zeros. My take is that if the field is needed for disambiguation of the tunnel, then it is an IPv4 or IPv6 address; if it is not needed for disambiguation of the tunnel, then it is set to all zeros. That to me says union, although in the absence of uint128 in YANG, I am not sure what the union would be of. Tom Petch which says to me tjat the intended use of this is an IPv4 or IPv6 address. /js -- Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor 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
