Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, On 12/14/18, 12:44 PM, "tom petch" wrote: Original Message - From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 8:14 PM > Hi Tom, Xufeng, > There are definitely some TE and GMPLS encodings including RFC 6827 and RFC 5786 that are not

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Original Message - From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 8:14 PM > Hi Tom, Xufeng, > There are definitely some TE and GMPLS encodings including RFC 6827 and RFC 5786 that are not in this version of the model. However, the model has reached the point in both size

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, Thanks for the kind suggestion. We will include these fixes in the next revision of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types. Best regards, - Xufeng Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, Xufeng, There are definitely some TE and GMPLS encodings including RFC 6827 and RFC 5786 that are not in this version of the model. However, the model has reached the point in both size and maturity where these can go in augmentations if they are important. If not, the LSAs will still

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, Thanks for checking on this. Agree that we need to fix the description text. What about the following? te-node-id: A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in the dotted-quad notation. This attribute

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Acee, Tom, and All, Several authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types had a brief discussion on this topic. Our take on the te-node-id and te-router-id is: - In TEAS, the te-node-id specified in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types has a wider use scope than IP MPLS TE. The system may or may not run

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

- Original Message - From: Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:57 PM > Hi Tom, > > I think that having a different router-id configured per protocol is a matter of deployment. I don't think that we can impose anything in this area. There are use cases where it is good to have separate

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, I think that having a different router-id configured per protocol is a matter of deployment. I don't think that we can impose anything in this area. There are use cases where it is good to have separate router-ids per protocol or instances of a protocol. For instance, when a router is

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Acee (Top-posting because the indentation usually fails) On the TEAS te-types, I had a quick look at where typedef te-node-id is used and the answer is lots of places, because it is part of grouping explicit-route-hop { description"The explicit route subobject grouping"; choice

[Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

The router id in this I-D confuse me. RFC8294 defines typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; ospf-yang defines leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address; draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types defines typedef te-node-id { type yang:dotted-quad; ... This attribute is mapped to