Subject: [Teas] FW: [CCAMP] FW: How to use the TE Tunnel YANG model to setup a Tunnel Segment

From: "Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:18:33 +0000

Thanks Ramon , for clarification.
Just fw to teas too.

Sergio

From: CCAMP [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: How to use the TE Tunnel YANG model to setup a Tunnel Segment

On 12/04/2017 16:53, Italo Busi wrote:
Forwarded to the CCAMP WG

In order to specify the ingress and egress links of the Tunnel Segment, the explicit-route-object list is used:

       |  +--rw named-explicit-paths

       |  |  +--rw named-explicit-path* [name]

       |  |     +--rw name      -> ../config/name

       |  |     +--rw config

       |  |     |  +--rw name?                     string

       |  |     |  +--rw explicit-route-objects

       |  |     |     +--rw explicit-route-object* [index]

In particular, the first element in the explicit-route-object list identifies the ingress link while the last element in the explicit-route-object list identifies the egress link.
Hi Italo,

In case it may help, IMHO this link is useful and IMHO it maps nicely - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4990#section-6.1.1

For your question, in general  and without additional tagging, it is not clear whether a first unnumbered interface is incoming or outgoing and, in my experience, this has been a constant interop. issue (e.g. some implementations stick to outgoing unnumbered interfaces ending in a TE Router ID, etc.) In a single domain, strict ERO, we have used a combination of #7 followed by #6 (7 explicitly tags that it is an incoming interface). IOW: if the first 2 unnumbered subobjects of the ERO have the same TE Router ID, the first is incoming and the second outgoing [A, i] [A, o], [B, b] [C, c]

R.