Hi Behcet,
Behcet Sarikaya writes:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Behcet Sarikaya writes:
>>
>>> Hi Lada,
>>>
>>> When trying to validate NETCONF get reply in Appendix D, I ran into a
>>> problem:
>>
>> I assume you mean Appendix D in RFC 7223.
>>
>
> No I meant
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Behcet Sarikaya writes:
>
>> Hi Lada,
>>
>> When trying to validate NETCONF get reply in Appendix D, I ran into a
>> problem:
>
> I assume you mean Appendix D in RFC 7223.
>
No I meant your draft. Yes, RFC 7223 also has a similar annex,
Behcet Sarikaya writes:
> Hi Lada,
>
> When trying to validate NETCONF get reply in Appendix D, I ran into a
> problem:
I assume you mean Appendix D in RFC 7223.
>
> This annex introduces a namespace iana-if-types and none of the YANG
> modules of ietf-routing-cfg is dependent on this namespac
Hi Lada,
When trying to validate NETCONF get reply in Appendix D, I ran into a problem:
This annex introduces a namespace iana-if-types and none of the YANG
modules of ietf-routing-cfg is dependent on this namespace.
As a result, the NETCONF tool that I am using could not recognize
ethernetCdmac
Hi Martin,
I think using the more generic term, “networking”, at the top would be
preferable. What we need is an instance abstraction that covers L3 (e.g.,
virtual router or VRF), L2 (e.g., Virtual Switch Instance), or a
combination (some EVPN, TRILL, etc). This could be used in lieu of each L2
m
Hi,
"Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote:
> We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the
> ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support I2RS.
> These discussions are ongoing.
>
> One current change that I would like to propose is to change the base
> instance cont
We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the
ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support I2RS.
These discussions are ongoing.
One current change that I would like to propose is to change the base
instance container from routing-instance to networking-inst
Thanks, let me take it to I2RS list then.
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>
> On 5/14/15, 12:16 PM, "Behcet Sarikaya" wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I am new to this list, I just sent my subscription request, if it
>>doesn't go thru, I hope that chairs can subscribe me.
On 5/14/15, 12:16 PM, "Behcet Sarikaya" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I am new to this list, I just sent my subscription request, if it
>doesn't go thru, I hope that chairs can subscribe me.
>
> I have been reading this draft and have a few comments:
>
>The draft defines one RPC operation called fib-route
Hi all,
I am new to this list, I just sent my subscription request, if it
doesn't go thru, I hope that chairs can subscribe me.
I have been reading this draft and have a few comments:
The draft defines one RPC operation called fib-route to query a
routing instance for the active route in the FI
10 matches
Mail list logo
