Hi Harish,
> On Oct 16, 2024, at 08:11, Harish R Prabhu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thank gou, Acee. I did notice the interface instance ID which was mentioned
> in 5340 in the yang model. However, interface id was missing.
>
The interface id isn’t configured in OSPFv3. It is normally the ifIndex which
comes from the ietf-interfaces.yang YANG module (RFC 8343).
From RFC 5340:
Interface ID
Every interface is assigned an Interface ID, which uniquely
identifies the interface with the router. For example, some
implementations MAY be able to use the MIB-II IfIndex ([INTFMIB])
as the Interface ID. The Interface ID appears in Hello packets
sent out the interface, the link-local-LSA originated by the
router for the attached link, and the router-LSA originated by the
router-LSA for the associated area. It will also serve as the
Link State ID for the network-LSA that the router will originate
for the link if the router is elected Designated Router.
The Interface ID for a virtual link is independent of the
Interface ID of the outgoing interface it traverses in the transit
area.
It is included in ietf-ospf.yang (RFC 9129) but as operational state:
leaf interface-id {
type uint32;
config false;
description
"OSPFv3 interface ID.";
}
}
> 5340 is clear about the protocol running on the link, rather than the
> interfaces.
>
> But in that case, what is ths context of multiple interfaces discussion in
> the RFC? An example use case will make it very clear to me.
>
This is putting multiple interfaces on the same network - I’m not aware of
anyone who has implemented this. I’d deprecate it if I ever respin RFC 5340 as
a Draft Standard.
Thanks,
Acee
> Best regards,
> Harish
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct, 2024, 3:42 pm Acee Lindem, <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2024, at 01:39, Harish R Prabhu <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi experts,
>>>
>>> My question is with regards to the OSPF yang scheme.
>>>
>>> RFC 5340 allows configuring multiple interfaces on the same link.
>>>
>>> As per my understanding on a linux machine,
>>>
>>> eth0 can be a link
>>> IPv6 address A/B would be one interface
>>> IPv6 address C/D could be another interface.
>>> Is this understanding correct?
>>>
>>> If so, why can't I configure interfaces selectively on a link today? For
>>> example, I want only A/B to be part of OSPF routing, not the other one
>>> (using the above example).? The doubt arises because there is no address
>>> configuration parameter for OSPF interfaces.
>>
>> In OSPFv3, the protocol runs on the link and not a specific subnet.
>>
>> The instance ID is in the YANG model (RFC 9129).
>>
>> grouping ospfv3-interface-config {
>> description
>> "OSPFv3 interface-specific configuration state.";
>>
>> leaf instance-id {
>> type uint8;
>> default "0";
>> description
>> "OSPFv3 instance ID.";
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Also as per 5340 interface id, and interface instance id is required for
>>> supporting multiple interfaces. But i do not see interface id in the yang
>>> specification.
>>>
>>> What am I missing? Maybe these are already answered previously in the
>>> mailing list. Please bear with me, appreciate the patience and answers from
>>> the experts.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Harish
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Harish R Prabhu
>>> --
>>> Bangalore, India.
>>> [email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>_______________________________________________
>>> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
