Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, On 12/14/18, 12:44 PM, "tom petch" wrote: Original Message - From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 8:14 PM > Hi Tom, Xufeng, > There are definitely some TE and GMPLS encodings including RFC 6827 and RFC 5786 that are not in

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Original Message - From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 8:14 PM > Hi Tom, Xufeng, > There are definitely some TE and GMPLS encodings including RFC 6827 and RFC 5786 that are not in this version of the model. However, the model has reached the point in both size a

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, Thanks for the kind suggestion. We will include these fixes in the next revision of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types. Best regards, - Xufeng Virus-free. www.avast.com <

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, Xufeng, There are definitely some TE and GMPLS encodings including RFC 6827 and RFC 5786 that are not in this version of the model. However, the model has reached the point in both size and maturity where these can go in augmentations if they are important. If not, the LSAs will still b

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

- Original Message - From: "Xufeng Liu" Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:25 AM Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:25 AM tom petch wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Xufeng Liu" > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:47 PM > > Hi Tom, > > Thanks fo

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:25 AM tom petch wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Xufeng Liu" > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:47 PM > > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for checking on this. Agree that we need to fix the description > text. What about the following? > > te-node-id: > A type r

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

- Original Message - From: "Xufeng Liu" Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:47 PM Hi Tom, Thanks for checking on this. Agree that we need to fix the description text. What about the following? te-node-id: A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, Thanks for checking on this. Agree that we need to fix the description text. What about the following? te-node-id: A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in the dotted-quad notation. This attribute M

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

- Original Message - From: "Xufeng Liu" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang Hi Acee, Tom, and All, Several authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types had a brief discussion on this topic. Our take on the te-node-id and te-router-id is: - In TEAS, the te-node-id specified in draft-ietf-teas

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Xufeng, Sounds good. Acee From: Xufeng Liu Date: Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 5:03 PM To: Acee Lindem Cc: Tom Petch , Stephane Litkowski , "lsr@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ospf-y...@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang Hi Acee, Tom, and All

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Acee, Tom, and All, Several authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types had a brief discussion on this topic. Our take on the te-node-id and te-router-id is: - In TEAS, the te-node-id specified in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types has a wider use scope than IP MPLS TE. The system may or may not run O

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, I think the only action here is for the authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types to fix their te-node-id definition. As for the OSPF Router ID and OSPF/ISIS TE Router IDs we can't change the decades old definitions to achieve uniformity. Thanks, Acee On 12/5/18, 11:12 AM, "tom petch"

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

- Original Message - From: Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:57 PM > Hi Tom, > > I think that having a different router-id configured per protocol is a matter of deployment. I don't think that we can impose anything in this area. There are use cases where it is good to have separate r

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, I think that having a different router-id configured per protocol is a matter of deployment. I don't think that we can impose anything in this area. There are use cases where it is good to have separate router-ids per protocol or instances of a protocol. For instance, when a router is p

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Acee (Top-posting because the indentation usually fails) On the TEAS te-types, I had a quick look at where typedef te-node-id is used and the answer is lots of places, because it is part of grouping explicit-route-hop { description"The explicit route subobject grouping"; choice type

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

Hi Tom, Let me try to explain. On 12/4/18, 12:44 PM, "tom petch" wrote: The router id in this I-D confuse me. RFC8294 defines typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; Some implementations configure a global router-id while others only allow it at the control-plane-p

[Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

The router id in this I-D confuse me. RFC8294 defines typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; ospf-yang defines leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address; draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types defines typedef te-node-id { type yang:dotted-quad; ... This attribute is mapped to Ro