Hi, Qin,
I think the answer from Robert to Mahesh on July 14(please see the detail on
the attached mail) best describes the key point of
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang-00:
Yes, I agree that a better name would be helpful, and definitely welcome
suggestions. The problem is that the
Hi, Qin:
Thanks for your comments first.
Below is my answer to your question:
1. As you pointed out, draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang-00 focuses mainly
on the common layer 2 characteristic of one interface, it augments the ietf:
if-interface yang model and compensates the characteristic of
Yes, this draft is talking about interface extension with tunnel management.
Tunnel is implemented as a virtual interface which provides a simple interface
for configuration. And the tunnel interface is independent of underlying
transport protocols to be used.
The common properties we proposed
-邮件原件-
发件人: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2015年7月15日 17:40
收件人: Qin Wu; wangzitao; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] Interface Extensions YANG draft
Hi Qin,
On 15/07/2015 02:57, Qin Wu wrote:
More naturally it feels that the interface layering is more useful
to
Hi Qin,
Please see inline ...
On 15/07/2015 12:21, Qin Wu wrote:
-邮件原件-
发件人: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2015年7月15日 17:40
收件人: Qin Wu; wangzitao; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] Interface Extensions YANG draft
Hi Qin,
snip
The parent interface leaf is just one of
Lada,
Our original intention was to be able to define wild cards for source and
destination ports, but what you are suggesting is also an option and I agree
your suggestion is better, so adding presence statement to port containers, as
in example below, would be the right solution
grouping
