-----邮件原件-----
发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee)
发送时间: 2020年7月31日 5:06
收件人: Kent Watsen <k...@watsen.net>; Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
抄送: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpign...@cisco.com>; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses
Hi Kent,
On 7/30/20, 4:55 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of k...@watsen.net> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing to the definitions in draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang.
> With that, your request is relatively clear now
Looking at draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang, the proposal is a “typedef”
that constrains inet:ipv[46]-address so that it can only contain loopback
address values.
> and the question the WG
> needs to answer is whether these types are common enough to warrant being
> part of inet-types, i.e., are there any other places where these types
> may be useful?
I don’t think so, but I’m not a routing person.
I wouldn't think that an internal loopback address would be widely used. In
fact, I checked our Cisco native models for IOS-XE and there is no such
definition.
[Qin]: I am not sure we are talking about loopback type or loopback address
See section 2.4 in draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-10, 3 type loopbacks are
defined:
1.Internal loopback
2.Line loopback
3.Loopback Connector
3 types loopback can be classified into local loopback and remote loopback.
I am not sure they are common, but we have some support for this.
Thanks,
Acee
> /js
K. // contributor
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
