Re: registering tunnel types

> On Oct 30, 2018, at 05:07, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
>> 
> 
> 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.

It’s not entirely obvious to me that netted / netconfig would be where the tunnel models were produced.

They tend if fact to be produced by the tunnel protocol maintainers e.g. l3sm/l2sm/ccamp and so on. The management tools for a product tend to be developed itself in my experience.

> 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:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandre
> Petrescu
>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 25 octobre 2018 09:54
>>>> À : ipv6@ietf.org
>>>> 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
>>>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>>>> Administrative Requests:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------