On 21 October 2015 at 07:52:43, Ladislav Lhotka (lho...@nic.cz) wrote:
One option would be to create two virtual interfaces - one for IPv4 VPN and
another for IPv6 VPN, and define routing-instance and addresses separately for
each.
This is only workable if an implementation must support two virtual interfaces
that have the same underlying encapsulation (i.e.., they are simply logically
separating IPv4 and IPv6), in some implementations, this isn’t the case, and
the virtual interfaces must have different encapsulations.
In openconfig-interfaces, each sub-interface is associated with a single VLAN,
so in this case, we would need the network-instance to be specified on a per
address-family basis there. There is nothing to stop one having a single leaf
at the sub-interface or interface level that is inherited by the other
constructs - this is something that I have been considering based on work on
the network-instance model that we recently published.
r.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
