> On 01 Jun 2016, at 08:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:02:41PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote:
>>> Hi Lada,
>>> If we can’t get YANG to do what we need, can we just support a choice with
>>> a special value of “unspecified” for
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:02:41PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote:
> > Hi Lada,
> > If we can’t get YANG to do what we need, can we just support a choice with
> > a special value of “unspecified” for the interface and address?
>
> Yes, you can make these keys be unio
"Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote:
> Hi Lada,
> If we can’t get YANG to do what we need, can we just support a choice with
> a special value of “unspecified” for the interface and address?
Yes, you can make these keys be unions of interface-ref and an enum
'unspecified', and an ip-address and enum 'uns
Since “multi-next-hop” is a list and we need a key for a list, even choice
doesn’t work here. I’m thinking maybe we can use “0.0.0.0” for empty ip
address and “NULL” for empty interface, but it doesn’t look pretty anyway.
Especially the interface should be a reference, and it can’t be “NULL”.
Than
Hi Lada,
If we can’t get YANG to do what we need, can we just support a choice with
a special value of “unspecified” for the interface and address?
Additionally, we’d need a constraint that enforces the fact that both
interface and address cannot be “unspecified”.
Thanks,
Acee
On 5/30/16, 8:51
"Yingzhen Qu (yiqu)" writes:
> Hi Lada,
>
> The ³multi-next-hop² is using the combination of interface and address as
> the list key. I know key can¹t be empty, but for next hop it¹s possible
> that only either interface or address is used. I¹ve been trying to figure
> out a better way to present
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 02:17:27PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>
> On 5/28/16, 9:31 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 09:14:23PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> >> Hi Lada, Juergen,
> >>
> >> On 5/27/16, 1:26 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> >> wrote:
>
