[netmod] Address Family versus Address Family
tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 11:35 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 90CB3130F59 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 03:35:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.196
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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 oPhIqAnM0th2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 03:35:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR04-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr80100.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.8.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DCDE130EE7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 03:35:30 -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=c39H82+n9mHkrjSiPdQ7eY6Jrv581jliodyYUfXpJQU=; b=T0F0nmF3R7ZvH2rI4JzBtcb6vmXGuVf1vLOrMHC8C6ncuCKw9b//IYD0cN2xrQMfqmQJGuVQAA6Fn2Ihov2Eiqifd7txts+Jg5P5pcvxae4HivoYzojbdN6e8vYH4digEWefR8xpXVOoCsUcH+K/XbU6rHc3nZRJFzn3oscFZgc=
Received: from VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.177.202.206) by VI1PR07MB5374.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.13.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1361.11; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:35:28 +0000
Received: from VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::929:bd11:beb6:b887]) by VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::929:bd11:beb6:b887%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1361.015; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:35:28 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Address Family versus Address Family
Thread-Index: AQHUgY5NMaELHgY0r0Cg02b5JWd9UQ==
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:35:28 +0000
Message-ID: <033101d4818e$08689dc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: CWXP265CA0030.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:400:2d::18) To VI1PR07MB5022.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:803:9b::14)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [86.128.101.213]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; VI1PR07MB5374; 6:Rf7ljuv5ShNM073ktWvf8hFElZNVnaOyoF0C6Bp/cWTNoDnUJ4oUcGA6g9Dd7n7H5BantIJMWD/JDRJvMItdfxdiC/ALxN1YufKrqOaB/p+PZSdxcIL/FMeWcFoKeI8DAZCxdyj8yS/l/o8p70X82UbaSglMB1GkVOCPZET9egLoooyvKDDG4ezr3OvtxrZenZN+9l5Z6itnAWFsxhksaPoS/zqlKtRgjDIt8a1uaegBv3j67tL9AQbJQYm22yhHeAKGH56TLdFf7b4ip+62PYMIagplm1qEywqNLSp/mB7oa/J9r+HGfXzjoi3Wpsc3zD//R0/LiyBJLDEbqaKpQsptC+iNwQHwrTy4ntbGx4g6AZz5oeMSZ5/gmmX9CzDUcm5WKBLN9oQSW0JxfHpp+B9AV6vK06EYUSYR/VSLzqVyjYPFZArPzVp0LnFatKiiW1P4SxlrfjmtUmBx3vvcyA==; 5:dQZyzGVxjt7VDdEHdsyG6AKoN5nOJxQPKhjeqvykNiZoBds+OQp88O5cXm0bcyZzaSPHv6FbQdu0JJEmAKhTkpKNv/3oH5JGc4LDTxDrtjlqYAaqwoSBaJvqp8SKmowh6zmQXCEsyzLyzWXcIL0SDN87Eao7MG9rajEpH5wxdbY=; 7:dVPi/ZHZ3dZqkmron5OQMXb/voGTiP1KKd5BD2liX2skXqG9DbKvyQrSVZBGZhU/p66p36dH3YVi2gbK6BWxKgff/ND/aQWscHn8cL0wZQB24ZippZ6q11bG8kFiPHfaPZhxbIkEVf4jqBb3O/JWCg==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b344bdec-b18a-4426-7ef6-08d64fa56fbf
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR07MB5374;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB5374:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR07MB5374881316D65A2AB92E5534A0DA0@VI1PR07MB5374.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(3231442)(944501410)(52105112)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:VI1PR07MB5374; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:VI1PR07MB5374;
x-forefront-prvs: 08635C03D4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(486006)(106356001)(316002)(6116002)(44736005)(53936002)(1730700003)(2351001)(6486002)(14454004)(105586002)(5660300001)(3846002)(66066001)(81166006)(81156014)(5640700003)(86362001)(9686003)(6512007)(305945005)(71190400001)(71200400001)(8676002)(6436002)(86152003)(68736007)(25786009)(186003)(2900100001)(2501003)(6916009)(84392002)(478600001)(7736002)(14496001)(2906002)(1556002)(256004)(14444005)(33896004)(8936002)(99286004)(476003)(26005)(97736004)(386003)(102836004)(6506007)(52116002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB5374; H:VI1PR07MB5022.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: 5gNKv5tF3ImWlFsOpyfBRVzLmq0zYCyIZn/rOgwjUbLQNj+gNDgOnbCJhxXSiOkgr/bbijtputJItPZhvrtjxFeichRQYHZBpPK73j3KOizD4lNAop2hmQGLeNreQ2p8C5jiZaJDUlQxOlCyDcJoS4EnR5gYLgse7Emkpq/KXg4VxYChHaWRtWTR6leGVNUu64mjd50H5Ta2YQtUaMTBebmemwutJW4nhS2CrpAJBjgsizeYAZtr3byEShNyDHktd5WB5uR4HbUUffbfxYaThdm/s7ODiewab6s0rut8n3psOhx9RXWZbbroXpTkA43IOzPNhcQt+bTMw80/sQ+u2yO7oa/wDNr1KXb9TW02lrk=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <5C4AF1FDD1643C42A0059C1A6872B280@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b344bdec-b18a-4426-7ef6-08d64fa56fbf
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Nov 2018 11:35:28.5384 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB5374
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/tkF9_HhqgBvxWqh4lhBupDRWK98>
Subject: [netmod] Address Family versus Address Family
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:35:39 -0000
I have always thought of Address Family as something that BGP created and that others have used. In fact, I find that there is an IANA registry of Address Families which RFC8294 has turned into a YANG module, but one using enumeration and not identity, which would seem to limit its utility. Indeed, while the lsr WG uses that module, I2RS does not with draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model defining identity address-family {description "Base identity from which all RIB address families are derived."; } identity - good; RYO definition - um. BGP also goes its own way with identity AFI_SAFI_TYPE { description "Base identity type for AFI,SAFI tuples for BGP-4"; reference "RFC4760 - multi-protocol extensions for BGP-4"; } And then there is RFC8349 with identity address-family { description "Base identity from which identities describing address families are derived."; } and which defines ipv4 and ipv6, and which ties the concept firmly to a RIB in a 1:1 correspondence. When I raised this on the rtgwg list, the response was that the concept of an address family is particular to a protocol, so there is no reason for ospf and BGP to share anything, which is how it seems. So, is there any reason for anyone to use the definition in RFC8349? or the IANA module? Tom Petch
- [netmod] Address Family versus Address Family tom petch
- Re: [netmod] Address Family versus Address Family Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Address Family versus Address Family tom petch
- Re: [netmod] Address Family versus Address Family Ladislav Lhotka