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
Hi -
On 12/16/2016 12:53 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
My recollection is that part of the motivation for the use of
zero-length strings as sentinel values in situations like this
in MIB modules (rather than skipping the object instance) was
to permit a clear distincti
[resend]
All,
This WG LC is closed.
Authors,
Please update your document per any (on & off list) comments received as
well as ensure it passes ID nits, preferably without any warnings. If
there are issues to be discussed based on comment, please do so on the
list. Once the document is updated t
FYI the TR-181 “Device:2” data model (a TR-069 data model) defines a
conceptually similar IPv6 address origin parameter (*):
——
Mechanism via which the IP address was assigned. Enumeration of:
AutoConfigured (Automatically generated. For example, a link-local address as
specified by SLAAC [Sect
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Dec 2016, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Lada,
>>>
>>> when would I use link-layer and when link-local? Perhaps all needed is
>>> a clarification of the description of link-layer
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 16 Dec 2016, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > Lada,
> >
> > when would I use link-layer and when link-local? Perhaps all needed is
> > a clarification of the description of link-layer? (Perhaps link-local
>
> The distinction between SLAAC and
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 14:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> Lada,
>
> when would I use link-layer and when link-local? Perhaps all needed is
> a clarification of the description of link-layer? (Perhaps link-local
The distinction between SLAAC and link-local address is IMO also important.
On 12/16/16, 8:39 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
wrote:
>Lada,
>
>when would I use link-layer and when link-local? Perhaps all needed is
>a clarification of the description of link-layer? (Perhaps link-local
>would have been a better name but too late now...)
>
>An RFC 3927 add
Semantically, link-local seems more like a type of address than the origin
of the address. Also, the enum already has the type ³link-layer².
Thanks,
Acee
On 12/16/16, 8:33 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think that one important enum is missing in the "ip-address-ori
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 02:36:50PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 16 Dec 2016, at 14:24, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 6087bis says in sec. 5.10:
> >>
> >> Top-level database data definitio
Lada,
when would I use link-layer and when link-local? Perhaps all needed is
a clarification of the description of link-layer? (Perhaps link-local
would have been a better name but too late now...)
An RFC 3927 address could also be a 'random' address. In fact, the
169.254/16 prefix kind of hings
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 14:24, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 6087bis says in sec. 5.10:
>>
>> Top-level database data definitions MUST NOT be mandatory.
>>
>> It think this makes sense only for config=true nodes
Hi,
I think that one important enum is missing in the "ip-address-origin" typedef:
enum link-local {
description
"Indicates a link-local address.";
reference
"RFC 3927: Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses
RFC 4291: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture";
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:48:56PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 6087bis says in sec. 5.10:
>
> Top-level database data definitions MUST NOT be mandatory.
>
> It think this makes sense only for config=true nodes. It is absolutely OK to
> have mandatory top-level state data, and some
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
Hi,
6087bis says in sec. 5.10:
Top-level database data definitions MUST NOT be mandatory.
It think this makes sense only for config=true nodes. It is absolutely OK to
have mandatory top-level state data, and some published modules already have
them, e.g. ietf-yang-library.
Also, I wonder -
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:31:31AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:26:09PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:15:00PM +0100, Marti
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:31:31AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:26:09PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:15:00PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > >
Hi,
A variant on your suggestion:
Rather than "diagnostics true;" a potentially more general way of
handling this could be a generalized schema flag to indicate that a
particular node (and its children) is never returned unless explicitly
requested. E.g. "hidden: true" instead of "diagnostic
Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Whether condition as below:
>
>
>fred
>barney
>
>
> Can select below record ?
>
>barney
>fred
>
>
> Basically , whether leaf-list with [barney, fred] are treated as same
> as leaf-list with [fred, barney] ? In ordered-by system the order does
> not
Whether condition as below:
fred
barney
Can select below record ?
barney
fred
Basically , whether leaf-list with [barney, fred] are treated as same as
leaf-list with [fred, barney] ? In ordered-by system the order does not matter
to user, so it can be treated as same ?
I thi
Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi,
> Consider we have 2 records as given below
>(Rec1)
> 10
> fred
>
>(Rec2)
> 20
> fred
> barney
> wilma
> someother
>
>
> Q1 : Using subtree filtering which condition on the leaf-list node can
> the user give such that he sele
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 05:26:09PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 04:15:00PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Issue https://github.com/netmod-wg/entity/issues/13
> > > >
> > >
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:38:35AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > William Lupton wrote:
> > > The current draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01 defines ietf-hardware and
> > > iana-entity modules. Is it intended that iana-entity will become
> > > iana-hardwar
Hi,
Consider we have 2 records as given below
(Rec1)
10
fred
(Rec2)
20
fred
barney
wilma
someother
Q1 : Using subtree filtering which condition on the leaf-list node can the user
give such that he selects the record which contains foo=fred only...
[we
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
> My recollection is that part of the motivation for the use of
> zero-length strings as sentinel values in situations like this
> in MIB modules (rather than skipping the object instance) was
> to permit a clear distinction between "information not available"
> and
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:38:35AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> William Lupton wrote:
> > The current draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01 defines ietf-hardware and
> > iana-entity modules. Is it intended that iana-entity will become
> > iana-hardware? Thanks, W.
>
> I don't have a strong opi
Hi,
William Lupton wrote:
> The current draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01 defines ietf-hardware and
> iana-entity modules. Is it intended that iana-entity will become
> iana-hardware? Thanks, W.
I don't have a strong opinion, but it probably makes sense. In the
MIB, the word "entity" is just present
Hi,
> On 16 Dec 2016, at 06:44, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
>
> I was going through the ietf discussion for leaf-list subtree and found a
> link (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg01982.html)
Your question belongs to to the NETMOD mailing list, so I am moving it there.
>
> A
29 matches
Mail list logo
