Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

Hi Behcet, Behcet Sarikaya writes: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Behcet Sarikaya writes: >> >>> Hi Lada, >>> >>> When trying to validate NETCONF get reply in Appendix D, I ran into a >>> problem: >>

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

Hi Lada, When trying to validate NETCONF get reply in Appendix D, I ran into a problem: This annex introduces a namespace iana-if-types and none of the YANG modules of ietf-routing-cfg is dependent on this namespace. As a result, the NETCONF tool that I am using could not recognize

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

Hi Martin, I think using the more generic term, “networking”, at the top would be preferable. What we need is an instance abstraction that covers L3 (e.g., virtual router or VRF), L2 (e.g., Virtual Switch Instance), or a combination (some EVPN, TRILL, etc). This could be used in lieu of each L2

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

Hi, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: > We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the > ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support I2RS. > These discussions are ongoing. > > One current change that I would like to propose is to change the

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support I2RS. These discussions are ongoing. One current change that I would like to propose is to change the base instance container from routing-instance to