Hi Reshad, Thank you for your kind suggestions. Sorry for the delay, as I missed this mail in the wrong category. Please find my answers below.
1. Please look at the NMDA guidelines. I think e.g. you’d need to merge arp-static-tables and arp-tables into 1 table. DXJ>> This is indeed the problem of this draft. However, the two tables cannot simply merged because the key "ip-address" of the new table cannot meet the requirement of arp entries inquiry. After discussion, we hold the arp-static-table and use the ‘augment’ to / interfaces-state / interface / ipv4 / neighbor of RFC 7277 to realize the ability of arp entries inquiry. 1. The tables have vrf-name as key. Take a look at draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model and how it is used by other YANG models. DXJ>> based on the revision of arp-static-tables, vrf-name is not used as the key of arp-static-tables any more. In our opinion, arp static entries can be configured by ip-addr + mac-addr or vrf+ip-addr. The revised arp-static-tables realize the ability of configuration by ip-addr + mac-addr. For the first choice, static ARP table has been defined in /if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4/ip:neighbor. Best regards, Xiaojian From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:45 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Comments on draft-ding-netmod-arp-yang-model Hi, Took a quick look, 2 main comments: 1. Please look at the NMDA guidelines. I think e.g. you’d need to merge arp-static-tables and arp-tables into 1 table. 2. The tables have vrf-name as key. Take a look at draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model and how it is used by other YANG models. Regards, Reshad.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
