Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang

tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Tue, 11 December 2018 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDF6130DD0; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 04:25:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.738
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RATWARE_MS_HASH=2.148, RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME=2.95, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWW3QZSh-UlM; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 04:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR02-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am5eur02on0704.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe07::704]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5E3B127333; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 04:25:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-btconnect-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tSEGhWSBaQ4uSP92c3ezWjxVscC13VyHGzp6i0lHwTc=; b=i16QROQa02EToMOQDywuuoYoTLetXRilv1legZYJJX90jmfttTVW3RH8Td9FJbM6ENdxI4d2KFHVDAZSXW8q1EyuKR3XEgbhbL9iYnN+wRIFclnhuLyYHHD57gg/3Tt3MeUQVsjdRXMOWFPWlLnMVNv9VA7u4pnh1kPheb4ZoXs=
Received: from VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.177.54.82) by VI1PR07MB6048.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.124.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1404.19; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:25:39 +0000
Received: from VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1575:d33b:33dd:c7c4]) by VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1575:d33b:33dd:c7c4%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1425.016; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:25:39 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
Thread-Index: AQHUi/kQHwUMS6pa80+jhemyQs3Dxg==
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:25:39 +0000
Message-ID: <048201d4914c$48295f80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <576_1542796445_5BF5349D_576_261_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7731BE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <19021_1543406661_5BFE8445_19021_254_3_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B776CB0@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <31F7DFA5-7BB5-4E79-AFD9-829AE34BC485@cisco.com> <26904_1543488239_5BFFC2EF_26904_436_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B777AA8@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <00ce01d48bf8$be184980$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <41B51A9E-9831-4669-AA87-AFA289303B71@cisco.com> <02b901d48c8b$48d5c920$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <31017_1544014638_5C07CB2E_31017_130_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B77DE59@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <002201d48cb4$eb6d5580$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <C13962BC-98F2-4775-8A7C-0DF186B26F4D@cisco.com> <CAEz6PPRMCCtj2yo0RPKnGR-3FadTzt9iuM7Eav_A5fn59enKNw@mail.gmail.com> <00f201d48e50$076e8b40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAEz6PPSk+_Gqh1bVDYoU1X3oDmnyxGjjXf8VCW2jXcLjYvcp4A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: LO2P265CA0213.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:9e::33) To VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:69::18)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [86.139.215.184]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR07MB6048; 6:m0LJt4eUenFpSo/b61U0F0Bo+byY1U3VXW4plh+5mT46WJi3Ra/DCMKthfe21ShmF3gF6NZe52tog6M1kQzKLWQ+Qn2V5Ax0LVNF32Cr6mPd78l+W4Z+W++EYa7VpEFxpbbid4vpByR/g3ZZMSUWm/7BHpN8g4tV51fMSmYISkr5NT2Gr0BX2CHTX4QBwS5Eb5Tuu/1tRVIdNsRDvb0OFv5JwewNUYbv7pk1wuzMOKrjur3b/WwRG82UbIDs+aeKb9PZ9DmlvWEAWDyGOrqwKKqxTGtaz7eHwIdCVzM0002gQpfLkOqZYSAeGk/Q7jmhhuSVKyThKdn+y1lvmrmo6T33c5iXjjs2RZh21cfFHovequGw29ANdnv/DZ7lKQh6jzSd5r43xLAvgabilPfDhA1U9jPaj82t1OaQEPyaL+3x+mv9ooZegxft/GY9KbkWkw0xhLLak/Wub3bmaMMqcg==; 5:roZpn91GkBFDa/lg+mP+37Zg5dg4D2QAv1nmlLhP2SCEBJArFhQx21bLEh+k5RNGjgcptTtbp+DCdA5T/ue0tBCJ+K5YHhRx1ivCn+Cqo1HS1UH4szubM2a0+HwWg9KjJVU1GVqfqrz6ay9aJsjGOC/Z1rjq+WMaoQpyo/RzrPA=; 7:UHsIM985T1cAmzFMnR0/34IZesigYEHgfP1/5FgPqYzHdAmttU7PsxWkSY2aVwSoA49CW1e52HqynG0QddAt1jpTmaOOhmFxzxmG6Lj0HuHDG80Ipa7EvYQpd55z+QNIzaxs8ZKCX+zH01uBtY5J2w==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e9b14039-a3fa-4391-91ea-08d65f63c2cc
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600074)(711020)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR07MB6048;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB6048:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR07MB6048BD6C5692B11EBA545D9BA0A60@VI1PR07MB6048.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(3230017)(999002)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(3231472)(944501520)(52105112)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:VI1PR07MB6048; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR07MB6048;
x-forefront-prvs: 08831F51DC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(366004)(346002)(136003)(376002)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(51914003)(13464003)(44736005)(66066001)(9686003)(66574011)(6916009)(5660300001)(478600001)(2906002)(84392002)(1556002)(7736002)(305945005)(14496001)(6486002)(26005)(93886005)(186003)(316002)(229853002)(99286004)(446003)(3480700005)(76176011)(486006)(4744004)(6512007)(52116002)(86152003)(476003)(33896004)(4326008)(106356001)(68736007)(54906003)(14454004)(6436002)(97736004)(71190400001)(53546011)(39060400002)(6506007)(5024004)(3846002)(25786009)(256004)(14444005)(6116002)(86362001)(105586002)(8936002)(8676002)(81166006)(102836004)(6246003)(81156014)(71200400001)(53936002)(386003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB6048; H:VI1PR07MB4717.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: XwQoudIv0B2ZtIjj+q66GW9/9VK8G4OldeNbDMd2Ps81B71gA685iG+1xgFA1dEaAldzMAiYtebNugykCj5+WET/Jg5Nvv8PdJcFCcLxUGYKrFgpH6HGP81cr3t97J8QKiuzqjnfPfJCFX8ubhsmrdIynSpqU4/0yIjYIR9/y+F2AfLMQmG57kGMGSeZotthfKTE+WibO39NQ/QUPkMOMIBFzmItfFYUtEVjbxIRIvgJ9HvS6ib5KFvXclg67ZX0cQx9Tn0LphrZaCNTIXNnxgbHDWgMm4ligPYGKXmlVdw8h/xVlHNOL8+COofHJZgLD7vQaLC032kHlGoyfVLVyEjMRHO9gsvN1AsEzH9VR4Y=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B3F33A66B69950428D6701AE7ABDF762@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e9b14039-a3fa-4391-91ea-08d65f63c2cc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Dec 2018 12:25:39.7784 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB6048
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/tsYY3jy6ITx_IqVjQPE_UigNvXE>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-yang
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:25:51 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:47 PM

Hi Tom,

Thanks for checking on this. Agree that we need to fix the description
text. What about the following?

te-node-id:
      A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology.
The
identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in the dotted-quad
notation.  This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address described
in
Section 2.4.1 of [RFC3630], the TE Router ID described in Section 3 of
[RFC6827], the Traffic Engineering Router ID described in Section 4.3 of
[RFC5305], or the TE Router ID described in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC6119].
The
reachability of such a TE node MAY be achieved by a mechanism such as
Section 6.2 of [RFC6827].

Or, would you give a suggestion?

<tp>

Looks good.

One query I cannot answer; should
  RFC5786 Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF
     TE Extensions. R. Aggarwal, K. Kompella. March 2010
be there as well?  On the face of it, it looks relevant and would appear
to meet a need but I note its absence from ospf-yang; I do not know how
widely it is implemented or used.  This RFC is updated by RFC6827.

Tom Petch

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:14 PM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
>
>
> Hi Acee, Tom, and All,
>
> Several authors of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types had a brief
discussion
> on
> this topic. Our take on the te-node-id and te-router-id is:
>
> - In TEAS, the te-node-id specified in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types
has
> a
> wider use scope than IP MPLS TE. The system may or may not run OSPF
TE,
> and
> may not use IPv4. The 32-bit ID number is used only for uniquely
> identifying the TE node, and it may or may not be a routable address.
> - When RFC3630 is implemented, it is ok to map a routable IPv4 address
> (such as the address of loopbak0) to the te-node-id, but it is not
> required.
> - We intentionally use the term "te-node-id" instead of "te-router-id"
> to
> convey the concept that this ID is on a TE node, which may or may or
be
> a
> router.
> - We will clarify the description to say that "This attribute is MAY
be
> mapped to TE Router ID in [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], and
> [RFC6119]."
>
> <tp>
>
> Xufeng
>
> Thanks for the clarification - I understand better now.
>
> However, I think that your proposed text is not quite right.  RFC5329
> does not defined a TE Router ID - in fact, I think that that concept
is
> alien to OSPF.  OSPF has a 32 bit number that is the Router ID with no
> requirement for that to be a routable address; which is why (IMHO)
> RFC5329 defines a
> Router IPv6 Address TLV
> which carries a routable address (which can meet the needs of TE).
>
> Likewise, RFC3630, for OSPFv2, does not have the concept of a TE
Router
> ID; rather, it has a
> Router Address TLV
> which specifies a stable IP address (which can meet the needs of TE).
>
> And then there is RFC5786 which defines, for OSPF,  the
> Node Attribute TLV
> with sub-TLV for
> Node IPv4 Local Address
> Node IPv6 Local Address
> allowing for multiple TE addresses for different traffic types.
>
> I grant you that RFC6119 defines a
>  TE Router ID
> but the concept is alien to OSPF (IMHO).
>
> So, if you want to use the term
>  TE Router ID
> then I think that you will need to explain how that maps onto the
> terminology of the existing OSPF RFC.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:38 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> > I think the only action here is for the authors of
> > draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types to fix their te-node-id definition. As
> for
> > the OSPF Router ID and OSPF/ISIS TE Router IDs we can't change the
> decades
> > old definitions to achieve uniformity.
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > On 12/5/18, 11:12 AM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
> >     Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:57 PM
> >
> >     > Hi Tom,
> >     >
> >     > I think that having a different router-id configured per
> protocol is
> > a
> >     matter of deployment. I don't think that we can impose anything
in
> this
> >     area. There are use cases where it is good to have separate
> router-ids
> >     per protocol or instances of a protocol. For instance, when a
> router is
> >     part of multiple "administrative domains", it is worth having
> separate
> >     router-ids per admin domain.
> >     >
> >     > However I have a concern about the router-id or te-node-id
> bound to
> > a
> >     32 bits number only. How do we do in a pure IPv6 network ?
> >
> >     Stephane
> >
> >     I am used to configuring a router-id as a 32-bit number with no
> >     requirement for that to be an address that can be accessed over
> the
> >     internet (so I have always found the idea of 'loopback0'
> unfortunate).
> >     Yes, the router needs to be addressable, but merging that
concept
> with
> > a
> >     router id has always seemed to me unfortunate because they are
two
> >     separate concepts.  (In fact, I would regard good practice as
> giving a
> >     router multiple addresses for different functions, so that e.g.
> syslog
> >     can be separated from SNMP or FTP).
> >
> >     Thus I have no problem with a 32-bit router-id in an IPv6
network.
> >     Indeed, RFC5329 defines a 32-bit router-id in an OSPFv3
> >     Intra-Area-TE-LSA.  It is the Router IPv6 Address TLV that
carries
> the
> >     128-bit address.
> >
> >     When ospf-yang says
> >              container te-rid {
> >                if-feature te-rid;
> >                description  "Stable OSPF Router IP Address used for
> Traffic
> >                   Engineering (TE)";
> >                leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address;
> description
> >                    "Explicitly configure the TE IPv4 Router ID.";
> >                }
> >                leaf ipv6-router-id {
> >                  type inet:ipv6-address;
> >                  description "Explicitly configure the TE IPv6
Router
> ID.";
> >
> >     then that is when I wonder what is going on.  That looks to me
> like
> >     configuring
> >     Router IPv6 Address TLV
> >     not the router id.
> >
> >     Meanwhile, te-yang-te-types has
> >
> >        te-node-id:
> >           A type representing the identifier for a node in a
topology.
> The
> >           identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in
the
> >           dotted-quad notation.  This attribute is mapped to Router
ID
> in
> >           [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], and [RFC6119].
> >
> >     Well, I disagree with their choice of YANG type but agree that
it
> is
> >     32-bit and not 128.
> >
> >     Tom Petch.
> >
> >     > Brgds,
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > -----Original Message-----
> >     > From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> >     > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:14
> >     > To: Acee Lindem (acee); LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS;
> lsr@ietf.org;
> >     draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org
> >     > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ospf-yang
> >     >
> >     > Acee
> >     >
> >     > (Top-posting because the indentation usually fails)
> >     >
> >     > On the TEAS te-types, I had a quick look at where
> >     > typedef te-node-id
> >     > is used and the answer is lots of places, because it is part
of
> >     >   grouping explicit-route-hop {
> >     >     description    "The explicit route subobject grouping";
> >     >     choice type {
> >     >       description   "The explicit route subobject type";
> >     >       case num-unnum-hop {
> >     >         container num-unnum-hop {
> >     >           leaf node-id {
> >     >             type te-types:te-node-id;
> >     >             description   "The identifier of a node in the TE
> >     > topology.";
> >     > and YANG uses of that grouping are many, in several WGs;
> however,
> >     > because it is a grouping, then the impact of changing the type
> should
> >     be
> >     > minimal at least in terms of the I-Ds.
> >     >
> >     > On the multiple router definitions, my research of the IETF
memo
> only
> >     > came up with the two cited RFC which, to me, say that you
should
> use
> >     an
> >     > existing router-id if there is one.
> >     >
> >     > I did look at the documentation of A Major Router Manufacturer
> and
> >     while
> >     > they did not give any advice, the default for a te router-id
was
> >     > loopback0
> >     > while the default for a more general router-id, one without
te,
> was
> >     > loopback0
> >     > which gives me the message, you can make them different but
> SHOULD
> > NOT
> >     > (in IETF terminology).
> >     >
> >     > So while I agree that the two lsr modules should allow
> per-protocol
> >     > configuration, I think that it should carry a health warning
in
> the
> >     body
> >     > of the I-D that this is not a good idea (I struggle to think
of
> when
> >     it
> >     > would be a good idea, to use three separate identifiers for,
> say, BGP
> >     > and the two lsr protocols).
> >     >
> >     > Tom Petch
> >     >
> >     > ----- Original Message -----
> >     > From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> >     > To: "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>om>;
> >     <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>om>;
> >     > <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>rg>;
> >     > <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>
> >     > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 7:46 PM
> >     >
> >     > > Hi Tom,
> >     > >
> >     > > Let me try to explain.
> >     > >
> >     > > On 12/4/18, 12:44 PM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
wrote:
> >     > >
> >     > >     The router id in this I-D confuse me.
> >     > >
> >     > >     RFC8294 defines
> >     > >          typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad;
> >     > >
> >     > > Some implementations configure a global router-id while
others
> only
> >     > allow it at the control-plane-protocol level. This is why we
> have it
> >     in
> >     > both places.
> >     > >
> >     > >     ospf-yang defines
> >     > >      leaf ipv4-router-id { type inet:ipv4-address;
> >     > >
> >     > > For better or worse, OSPF has a separate TE address that is
> > routable
> >     > and referred to as the TE router-id. You'll note that this is
> part of
> >     > the te-rid container in both the OSPF and IS-IS YANG models.
We
> could
> >     > add "-te-" to the leaves to avoid confusion.
> >     > >
> >     > >     draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types defines
> >     > >       typedef te-node-id {     type yang:dotted-quad;
> >     > >      ...       This attribute is mapped to Router ID ....
> >     > >
> >     > > This is just wrong. It is a routable address in the IGP TE
> >     extensions.
> >     > I've copied the draft authors.
> >     > >
> >     > > Thanks,
> >     > > Acee Lindem
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >     Three different YANG types for a router id.
> >     > >
> >     > >     Why?
> >     > >
> >     > >     Behind this, ospf-yang gives as references for a router
te
> id
> >     > >     RFC3630(V2) and RFC5329(V3).  Reading these, my take is
> that a
> >     > router id
> >     > >     is needed for te but that the existing id should be used
> where
> >     > possible
> >     > >     i.e. creating an additional identifier for the same
> instance of
> >     > the same
> >     > >     entity is A Bad Thing (which sounds like a good general
> >     > principle).
> >     > >     With two objects in the lsr protocols, that would appear
> to
> > make
> >     > at
> >     > >     least three identifiers for the same instance of the
same
> >     entity.
> >     > >
> >     > >     Why?
> >     > >
> >     > >     I copy Stephane on this since the same issues apply to
the
> > other
> >     > lsr
> >     > >     protocol, mutatis mutandi.
> >     > >
> >     > >     Tom Petch
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
> >     _________________________________________________
> >     >
> >     > 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.
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>