Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

Hi - On 2021-09-27 11:35 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:42 AM Randy Presuhn > wrote: Hi - On 2021-09-27 10:13 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: ... > SNMP GetNext and GetBulk do not handle missing nodes well at all,

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:42 AM Randy Presuhn < randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote: > Hi - > > On 2021-09-27 10:13 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > ... > > SNMP GetNext and GetBulk do not handle missing nodes well at all, so it > > became > > common practice to return 0 or -1, etc. to simplify

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

Hi - On 2021-09-27 10:13 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: ... SNMP GetNext and GetBulk do not handle missing nodes well at all, so it became common practice to return 0 or -1, etc. to simplify client processing of these operations. None of the YANG-based protocols have this problem. In what way

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

gt; Andy > > > -Original Message- > > From: netmod On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA > > H > > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:52 AM > > To: 'tom petch' ; 'Juergen Schoenwaelder' > > ; 'Mahesh Jethanandani' > > > > Cc: 'Babel at

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

due to AAA rules 2) leaf wasn't returned because it is not-applicable/not-available Jason > -Original Message- > From: netmod On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA > H > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:52 AM > To: 'tom petch' ; 'Juergen Schoenwaelder' > ; 'Mahesh Jethanandani'

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

From: netmod on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder Sent: 15 September 2021 00:53 On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:01:11AM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > If BBF already > > defined to use -1, so be it. > > That works for me and is consistent with the information model in 9046. > > What I find not so

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 01:01:11AM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > If BBF already > > defined to use -1, so be it. > > That works for me and is consistent with the information model in 9046. > > What I find not so great is the side effect of going from uint16 to int32. > > I don’t see a big

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

Hi Martin, > On Sep 14, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Martin Björklund wrote: > > Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 01:51:36PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

Carsten, whatever you do, you will at the end need an extra bit. If BBF already defined to use -1, so be it. The alternative is to not instantiate the leaf if there is no value and to accept that a client can't tell the difference between 'there is no value' and 'the value has been suppressed by

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

On 14. Sep 2021, at 19:17, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > > If other data models use an extended integer range and -1 to indicate > a special case, then this may be a strong reason to do the same in the > IETF YANG data model. Any data model based on FORTRAN certainly will do. Most other data

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > > On Sep 14, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 01:51:36PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > > > >> As I mentioned, BBF TR-181 uses int with range -1:65535 with -1 > >> meaning NULL. So I certainly

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

All, From: netmod on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:38 PM To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Cc: Babel at IETF , "STARK, BARBARA H" , "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16 Hi Juergen, On Sep 14, 2021,

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

Hi Juergen, > On Sep 14, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 01:51:36PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > >> As I mentioned, BBF TR-181 uses int with range -1:65535 with -1 >> meaning NULL. So I certainly have no issue with that approach. The

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 01:51:36PM +, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > As I mentioned, BBF TR-181 uses int with range-1:65535 with -1 > meaning NULL. So I certainly have no issue with that approach. The language > in RFC9046 was intended to make sure this approach was allowed, since this

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

From: STARK, BARBARA H Sent: 14 September 2021 14:51 > I seem to be coming into this discussion in the middle, so I hope I'm > understanding where things are. Comments in-line. > > > Hi Mahesh, > > > > management interface usually do not change protocol semantics (for the > > simple reason

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

> I seem to be coming into this discussion in the middle, so I hope I'm > understanding where things are. Comments in-line. > > > Hi Mahesh, > > > > management interface usually do not change protocol semantics (for the > > simple reason that protocol engines do not necessarily know which > >

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

>> the Babel RFC makes it clear that 0 is a valid value that must not be >> confused with NULL. This is true for both seqnos and metrics. A route with metric 0 is perfectly valid, and in fact the value 0 is the default for a directly connected prefix. -- Juliusz

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

rom: netmod on behalf of STARK, BARBARA H Sent: 13 September 2021 21:59 I seem to be coming into this discussion in the middle, so I hope I'm understanding where things are. Comments in-line. > Hi Mahesh, > > management interface usually do not change protocol semantics (for the > simple

Re: [netmod] [babel] NULL value for uint16

I seem to be coming into this discussion in the middle, so I hope I'm understanding where things are. Comments in-line. > Hi Mahesh, > > management interface usually do not change protocol semantics (for the > simple reason that protocol engines do not necessarily know which > management