Re: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01

Hi Stephane,

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:04 AM, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote:

> Hi Hannes,
>
> > hmm can we first collect some TE related atrributes that apply both to
> OSPF and IS_IS before making that call ?
>
> Based on the last discussions we had at IETF, the best solution would be
> to have TE attributes directly in the ISIS model in a similar way as OSPF
> rather than trying to define a common augmented model. I think this
> discussion is similar to the "superset" IGP Link State model where we did
> not want to go into ...

Is there a reason not to look for common groups of information where we
can?  I wouldn't necessarily go for augmenting but for a common group that
both ISIS and OSPF could include.

You might also look at draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-network-topo-00 .

Alia

>  > that one might get hairy pretty soon ... as some vendors define their
> leak policy as prefix, lists and some others call into execution of a
> policy language.
>
> Right, the issue with policy is more global rather than just an ISIS issue
> ... it's not really my priority for now ...
>
>
> Stephane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Gredler [mailto:hannes@juniper.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 17:39
> To: Wunan (Eric)
> Cc: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01
>
> hi eric, stephane,
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 06:04:28PM +0000, Wunan (Eric) wrote:
> [ ... ]
> |    6. Missing traffic engineering ?
> |
> |
> |
> |    [SLI] Only wide metrics are there , but not traffic-eng. I was
> wondering
> |    if TE should be part of a separate datamodel (using augmentation) and
> so
> |    can be used for both OSPF and ISIS protocols    point to discuss
> |
> |    [Eric] Agree to be a separate model. That's will be better.
>
> hmm can we first collect some TE related atrributes that apply both to
> OSPF and IS_IS before making that call ?
>
>
> [ ... ]
> |    8. Missing redistribution related cfg ?
> |
> |
> |
> |    [SLI] Route-filters are part of the core data model. But maybe we
> need to
> |    augment stuffs    I did not look at it yet.
>
> that one might get hairy pretty soon ... as some vendors define their leak
> policy as prefix, lists and some others call into execution of a policy
> language.
>
>
> |    9. Multi-topology should allow to configure more besides ipv4-uni,
> |    ipv6-uni, ipv4-multi, ipv6-multi
> |
> |    These are commonly used configuration which should not be omitted.
> |
> |
> |
> |    [SLI] Please provide more details on what you want.
> |
> |    [Eric] Multi-topology for non-standard ones. This model should allow
> this.
>
> do you have a use-case for this ? - any document that you can refer to ?
>
>
> /hannes
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>