Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 (was: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022)

Hi Sasha, Although we are providing the same or better functionality, we never had mimicking the RFC 4292 MIB structure as a requirement. IMO, this would be a mistake since SNMP doesn’t allow nesting of tables while YANG, OTOH, supports arbitrary nesting of schema. We really must exploit this ke

Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 (was: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022)

Acee, Lots of thanks for a prompt response with a highly relevant pointer. I will read draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend and probably send more questions. Meanwhile, could you please explain the rationale for changing the data mode

Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 (was: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022)

Hi Sasha, You are correct that there is no per-next-hop preference in the current model. However, this is included in the augmentation in draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend. Thanks, Acee From: Alexander Vainshtein Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 9:53 AM To: Acee Lindem , Ladislav Lhotka Cc: Rout

[netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349 (was: Doubts about static routes in RFC 8022)

Hi all, I have noticed that 8022 has been obsoleted by RFC 8349. But it has exactly the same problem. Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 3:57 PM To: 'a...@cisco.com' ; '