IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 10:40 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA363A126D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vA5rbqFano22 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BF5B3A1264 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 03:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8FE0DC6ABE6E17A3055E; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:40:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.190) by lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:40:27 +0100
Received: from DGGEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.40) by lhreml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:40:27 +0100
Received: from DGGEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.170]) by dggeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:40:21 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses
Thread-Index: AdZnJuAQRx54X/1hSJunSSY0rtMzmA==
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:40:20 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD8AA8D8@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.164.150.238]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ihi8FGxXMqiqBx8NKVrTpy5FkDY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:40:33 -0000

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
发送时间: 2020年7月31日 18:22
收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>; Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>; Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
抄送: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

Hi Qin, 

On 7/30/20, 9:23 PM, "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:

    -----邮件原件-----
    发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee)
    发送时间: 2020年7月31日 5:06
    收件人: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>; Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
    抄送: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>; netmod@ietf.org
    主题: Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

    Hi Kent,

    On 7/30/20, 4:55 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of kent@watsen.net> wrote:


        > Thanks for pointing to the definitions in draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang.
        > With that, your request is relatively clear now

        Looking at draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang, the proposal is a “typedef” that constrains inet:ipv[46]-address so that it can only contain loopback address values.


        > and the question the WG
        > needs to answer is whether these types are common enough to warrant being
        > part of inet-types, i.e., are there any other places where these types
        > may be useful?

        I don’t think so, but I’m not a routing person.

    I wouldn't think that an internal loopback address would be widely used. In fact, I checked our Cisco native models for IOS-XE and there is no such definition. 

    [Qin]: I am not sure we are talking about loopback type or loopback address
    See section 2.4 in draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-10, 3 type loopbacks are defined:
    1.Internal loopback
    2.Line loopback
    3.Loopback Connector
    3 types loopback can be classified into local loopback and remote loopback.
    I am not sure they are common, but we have some support for this. 

This is the loopback address type - not the loopback interface type. Look at draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang (the draft being discussed in the Email thread). 

[Qin]:I understand, but I feel related. Maybe I am wrong.
Thanks,
Acee

    Thanks,
    Acee


        > /js

        K.  // contributor
        _______________________________________________
        netmod mailing list
        netmod@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    netmod@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status