Hi Rob,
Regarding " Were you looking for any additional specific statistics?".
As long as RFC7223 interface statistics - relevant to a given subinterface are
picked and are available on per subinterface level that should be fine.
"However, it would probably be useful to have a counter on the parent trunk to
indicate the number of packets that haven't been matched to any sub-interface,
so I think that I should add that."
Yes - I think, this would be useful.
Thanks,
Iftekhar
-Original Message-
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 4:14 AM
To: Iftekhar Hussain; Lou Berger; NetMod WG
Cc: NetMod WG Chairs; draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-y...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-04
Hi Iftekhar,
Thanks for the comments and support, please see inline ...
On 15/12/2016 18:55, Iftekhar Hussain wrote:
> Yes/support.
>
> I have read this draft and believe it would be very useful for enabling many
> Layer 2 and Layer 3 services.
>
> However, I do have few comments and that I would like the authors to address
> once the document is a WG document.
>
> a) Suggest to replace this text:
> "These modules allow IETF forwarding protocols (such as IPv6 and VPLS)
> ..."
> with the following text:
> " These modules allow configuration Layer 2 and Layer 3 subinterfaces
> (e.g., attachment circuits) for providing for IETF L2VPN (e.g., VPWS, VPLS,
> EVPN) and L3VPN services".
Yes, OK. I think that this text can be tweaked.
>
> b) The document should clearly identify the scope. For example, suggest
> replace this text:
> "... to interoperate with VLAN tagged traffic orginated from an IEEE
> 802.1Q compliant bridge".
> with the following text:
> "... to interoperate with traffic originated from an IEEE 802.1D,
> 802.1Q, or 802.1AD compliant bridge."
>
> Note: In the data model, the draft is talking about untagged as
> well as 802.1AD (see "tag type (802.1Q or 802.1ad)")
Yes, it should mention 802.1D. 802.1ad is part of 802.1Q. The draft would be
best referring to S-VLANs vs C-VLANs rather than 802.1Q vs 802.1ad.
>
> c) Are there any sub-interface level common statistics counters that the
> model should address? Currently, I don't see any.
A sub-interface is still just an interface, so by default it would pick up all
of RFC7223 interface statistics. Were you looking for any additional specific
statistics?
However, it would probably be useful to have a counter on the parent trunk to
indicate the number of packets that haven't been matched to any sub-interface,
so I think that I should add that.
Thanks,
Rob
>
> Thanks,
> Iftekhar
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 3:32 PM
> To: NetMod WG
> Cc: NetMod WG Chairs
> Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-04
>
> All,
>
> This is start of a two week* poll on making
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-04 a NetMod working group document.
>
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
> document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to
> see addressed once the document is a WG document.
>
> * Given the holiday, the poll ends December 28.
>
> Thank you,
> NetMod WG Chairs
>
> ___
> 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
