IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netmod] Question regarding RFC 8344

Peter Schneider <Peter.Schneider@kontron.com> Thu, 11 July 2019 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.schneider@kontron.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 6D9BD120106 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.138
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TITLE_SUBJ_DIFF=2.036, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 G4aZbkIeC-2A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from skedge04.snt-world.com (skedge04.snt-world.com [91.208.41.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 036AB12003E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 10:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sntmail10s.snt-is.com (unknown [10.203.32.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by skedge04.snt-world.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991E467A861 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 19:04:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from sntmail12r.snt-is.com (10.203.32.182) by sntmail10s.snt-is.com (10.203.32.183) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 19:04:26 +0200
Received: from sntmail12r.snt-is.com ([fe80::e551:8750:7bba:3305]) by sntmail12r.snt-is.com ([fe80::e551:8750:7bba:3305%3]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 19:04:26 +0200
From: Peter Schneider <Peter.Schneider@kontron.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Question regarding RFC 8344
Thread-Index: AQHVOAqxOQ2eErtrGE+3EQjS430EUA==
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:04:26 +0000
Message-ID: <fa13ed97-bd27-7d8e-921b-567521f5e739@kontron.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
x-originating-ip: [10.228.0.139]
x-c2processedorg: 51b406b7-48a2-4d03-b652-521f56ac89f3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_fa13ed97bd277d8e921b567521f5e739kontroncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SnT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-SnT-MailScanner-ID: 991E467A861.A52F7
X-SnT-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-SnT-MailScanner-SpamCheck:
X-SnT-MailScanner-From: peter.schneider@kontron.com
X-SnT-MailScanner-To: netmod@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/m219jxu7WRtvLlkHY4b8AqB5tVo>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 07:51:13 -0700
Subject: [netmod] Question regarding RFC 8344
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, 12 Jul 2019 07:46:16 -0000

Hi,

I stumbled on an incompatibility between the IP Management YANG Module and the real world:
In the 'container ipv4', the leaf 'mtu' is declared as uint16 in the range 68..max, which is effective the range 68..65535, as noted in rfc 7950<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.2> .
On the other side, the default MTU size of the loopback interface in Linux is 65536 since several years.
Depending on the used netconf client, the client either reports (correctly) an error when getting / configuring the loopback interface, or silently reduces /raises the shown resp. configured value for the mtu.

Are there any statements available on this issue?

Kind Regards,

Peter Schneider
--
Peter Schneider
Software Engineer R&D
Kontron
Heinrich-Barth-Strasse 1-1a | 66115 Saarbrücken | Germany
P: +49 681 95916 206
peter.schneider@kontron.com<mailto:peter.schneider@kontron.com>

Website<http://www.kontron.com/> | Blog<http://blog.kontron.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/Kontron> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/kontron> | YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXkp_1gJbG0Um1vzdowlqww> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/kontron>

Kontron Europe GmbH
Die gesetzlichen Pflichtangaben finden Sie hier<http://www.kontron.de/additional/impressum>.
Please find our mandatory legal statements hier<http://www.kontron.com/additional/disclaimer>.
Mit dem Öffnen dieses E-Mails stimmen Sie Kontrons Richtlinien zur elektronischen Kommunikation<http://www.kontron.de/additional/rechtliche-hinweise> zu.
By opening this email you are agreeing to Kontron's Electronic Communications Policy<http://www.kontron.com/additional/legal-and-copyright-information>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email