Skip to content

Update the description of ip-ttl and dscp #1511

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
tasaleh wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
+7 −5
Open

Update the description of ip-ttl and dscp #1511

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
64a0e50
Update the description of ip-ttl and dscp
Jul 7, 2026
8ca6404
Merge branch 'master' into ip_ttl_dscp_description_update
navaneethyv Jul 14, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 7 additions & 5 deletions release/models/aft/openconfig-aft-common.yang
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -843,8 +843,10 @@ submodule openconfig-aft-common {
leaf dscp {
type oc-inet:dscp;
description
"DSCP value to use for the UDP header of the encapsulated
packet.";
"This leaf reflects the configured/default DSCP value that is used

@navaneethyv navaneethyv Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes some assumptions about the behavior of DSCP value in this leaf. Can you please add 2 supporting implementations for this ?

in the outer header during packet encapsulation. When this leaf is
not set, the DSCP value of the inner packet is copied over as the
outer packet's DSCP value during encapsulation.";
}

leaf src-udp-port {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -875,10 +877,10 @@ submodule openconfig-aft-common {
leaf ip-ttl {
type uint8;
description
"This leaf reflects the configured/default IP TTL value that is used
"This leaf reflects the configured/default IP TTL / Hop Limit value that is used
in the outer header during packet encapsulation. When this leaf is
not set, the TTL value of the inner packet is copied over as the
outer packet's IP TTL value during encapsulation.";
not set, the IP TTL / Hop Limit value of the inner packet is copied over as the

@navaneethyv navaneethyv Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

HI @tasaleh ,

if your intent is towards v6 version of IP ttl , can we add it as a different field so that it is consistent with v6 terminology ?

@tasaleh tasaleh Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hello @navaneethyv,

We have raised this point in this PR 1492. The response was to keep using ip-ttl with V6. Please see the comments from @earies and @ ElodinLaarz
This is the reason why we propose this description change to capture the new usage.

@sachendras sachendras Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would prefer this to be consistent to the rfc8200 for IPv6. If it is "Hop Limit" for IPv6, I feel the OC should match.

@sachendras sachendras Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

However, just saw that #1492 is merged now after multiple discussions with the following reasoning and looks fine to me.

Summary: The deviation is purely a YANG modeling compromise. In pull/1492, the slightly inaccurate naming (ip-ttl instead of hop-limit for IPv6) was accepted to maximize code reuse by importing an existing module's structural grouping. Doing something different for IPv6 will add additional complexities without much benefit

outer packet's IP TTL / Hop Limit value during encapsulation.";
}
}

Expand Down
Loading