Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Thank you all for the discussions and comments.

If we’re to do error-checking in the YANG module, here’re the two issues:

Ip-prefix is a union of “ipv4-prefix” and “ipv6-prefix”. The mask-length-upper is 32 for IPv4 and 128 for IPv6, so we either have to separate ipv4 and ipv6 in order to add a constraint or it will be up to the server to reject the config.

“ipv4-prefix” and “ipv6-prefix” are defined as a string, so the mask-length is part of the string. I don’t know an easy way to add a constraint if mask-length-lower needs to be verified against mask-length.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 9:06 AM
To: "John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=[e-mail]>, Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, RTGWG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-16

On Jul 7, 2020, at 11:35 AM, John G. Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Acee,


On Jul 7, 2020, at 11:16 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]> wrote:
Yes. I’d say we should just use the ip-prefix type from RFC 6021. This type has the right semantics.
However, I’m wondering how we do the mask-length-lower checking with the union. I imagine it should be possible.

How would you test the constraint on mask-length-upper if you use ip-prefix?

Duh, that’s what you said, s/upper/lower/. I don’t see a way to do it, but if you can work it out I agree it otherwise seems like the right approach.

—John