Subject: Removal of mixed prefix-set type

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:09:30 +0000

Version -14 addresses most of Tom Petch's comments. 

The authors would like to remove the mixed type of prefix-set. It doesn't seem that any implementations mix IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes in the same set. Consequently, I really don't see any advantage and the semantics would have to be to ignore prefixes of that don't match the type of the route or other construct being matched. As an alternative, we will allow the same name for an IPv4 and IPv6 prefix-set which is supported by most implementations.

diff --git a/ietf-routing-policy.yang b/ietf-routing-policy.yang
index dfe3977..711f27d 100644
--- a/ietf-routing-policy.yang
+++ b/ietf-routing-policy.yang
@@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ module ietf-routing-policy {
           "Data definitions for a list of IPv4 or IPv6
           prefixes which are matched as part of a policy.";
         list prefix-set {
-          key "name";
+          key "name mode";
           description
             "List of the defined prefix sets";
 
@@ -777,11 +777,6 @@ module ietf-routing-policy {
                 description
                   "Prefix set contains IPv6 prefixes only.";
               }
-              enum mixed {
-                description
-                  "Prefix set contains mixed IPv4 and IPv6
-                   prefixes.";
-              }
             }
             description
               "Indicates the mode of the prefix set, in terms of
@@ -789,9 +784,7 @@ module ietf-routing-policy {
                present. The mode provides a hint, but the device
                must validate that all prefixes are of the indicated
                type, and is expected to reject the configuration if
-               there is a discrepancy.  The MIXED mode may not be
-               supported on devices that require prefix sets to be
-               of only one address family.";
+               there is a discrepancy.";
           }

Thanks,
Acee

On 6/1/20, 1:03 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of [email-masked]" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
    This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group WG of the IETF.

            Title           : A YANG Data Model for Routing Policy Management
            Authors         : Yingzhen Qu
                              Jeff Tantsura
                              Acee Lindem
                              Xufeng Liu
    	Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-14.txt
    	Pages           : 40
    	Date            : 2020-06-01

    Abstract:
       This document defines a YANG data model for configuring and managing
       routing policies in a vendor-neutral way and based on actual
       operational practice.  The model provides a generic policy framework
       which can be augmented with protocol-specific policy configuration.

    The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model/

    There are also htmlized versions available at:
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-14
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-14

    A diff from the previous version is available at:
    https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-14

    Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
    until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

    Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
    ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

    _______________________________________________
    rtgwg mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg