Re: registering tunnel types

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexandre Petrescu" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 1:59 PM

> Le 29/10/2018 à 13:19, [e-mail] a écrit :
> > Alex,
> >
> > draft-ietf-softwire-yang relies on an existing registry: :
https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbe
rs-6. So, the list cited by Tom is from that registry.
draft-ietf-softwire-yang is only echoing those values.
>
> It's a long list in section titled:
> "Internet-standard MIB -
mib-2.interface.ifTable.ifEntry.ifType.tunnelType"
>
> I think it binds the concept of a 'tunnel' to that of an 'interface'.
>
> They are distinct.  Not only there are interfaces that are not tunnels
> but there are tunnels that have no interfaces either.  (i.e. tunnels
> that are not visible in the full list of interfaces of a computer).
>
> This boils down to the YANG model to _not_ see these tunnels either.

Alex

I agree, at least in part; tunnels and interfaces are different animals
and it is unfortunate that they were conflated in SMI.

I was surprised that NETMOD had not produced a YANG module for tunnels
but it seems that there has been no need for the past decade.  That
said, I think that it is a good idea to have one.  Whether or not it
should mirror the Tunnel MIB I find more debatable.

My own homework came across other IP in IP varieties which do not
appear.

Tom Petch


>
> Alex
>
> >
> > If you need a new value or if you have a question about a given
interface tunnel type, please follow the guidelines in the url cited
above. All this is out of the scope of draft-ietf-softwire-yang.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Alexandre
Petrescu
> >> Envoyé : jeudi 25 octobre 2018 09:54
> >> À : [e-mail]
> >> Objet : Re: registering tunnel types
> >>
> >> Are:
> >> -IPv6 in UDPv4 and
> >> -IPv6 in IPv6 as used by openvpn;
> >>
> >> covered by the list below?
> >>
> >> These are a few tunnelling mechanisms I use routinely.
> >>
> >> Existing identity 6tofour should be deprecated, if that means 6to4,
> >> which is deprecated.
> >>
> >> Existing identity iphttps has a version number for IP?
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> Le 24/10/2018 à 17:57, tom petch a écrit :
> >>> draft-ietf-softwire-yang
> >>> completed IETF Last Call two weeks ago and, since then, has
acquired a
> >>> YANG module that defines tunnel types, as listed below.  It is
intended
> >>> to be a IANA-maintained module and so changes to the list of
tunnels
> >>> will not require a reissue of the softwires RFC-to-be.  At the
same
> >>> time, getting it right first time never did any harm so if anyone
can
> >>> think of any missing, or can think of other places where there
might be
> >>> other tunnels lurking, now would be a good time to mention it.
> >>>
> >>> It is based on RFC4087 Tunnel MIB (which created an SMI Textual
> >>> Convention that went up to Teredo) so tunnels from that vintage
are
> >>> likely well catered for.  softwires is not where I would have
first
> >>> looked for tunnel types, but it has a certain logic to it.
> >>>
> >>>        identity  other
> >>>
> >>>        identity direct
> >>>
> >>>        identity gre
> >>>
> >>>        identity minimal
> >>>
> >>>        identity l2tp
> >>>
> >>>        identity pptp
> >>>
> >>>        identity l2f
> >>>
> >>>        identity udp
> >>>
> >>>        identity atmp
> >>>
> >>>        identity msdp
> >>>
> >>>        identity sixtofour
> >>>
> >>>        identity sixoverfour
> >>>
> >>>        identity isatap
> >>>
> >>>        identity teredo
> >>>
> >>>        identity iphttps
> >>>
> >>>        identity softwiremesh
> >>>
> >>>        identity dslite
> >>>
> >>>        identity  aplusp
> >>>
> >>> Tom Petch
> >>>
>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>