I can see having it in a file for displaying or sending - but actually
having the I2RS agent crawl through it to report the data back???

Alia


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke <[email protected]>wrote:

> On 8/14/13 1:50 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > Are you asking that the history data itself be readable with I2RS?  I
> > really would not want to go there.  Asking "who created the current
> > state, CLI or specific named I2RS client, might be reasonable.
>
> I am suggesting the history (as well as current state) be readable via
> I2RS itself.  In that manner it could be vendor-agnostic by which
> traceability can be done.   Current state could be understand who
> installed a route and when (Client identifier and timestamp).  But there
> could be conditions where a Client had a route installed then removed
> it.  If you wanted to correlate a period of bad performance, you would
> like to be able to query I2RS to see what changed in a particular time
> frame.
>
> Joe
>
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > On 8/14/13 1:44 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> >> On 8/14/13 1:35 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> >>> Yes, I agree that requiring someyhing like transport mirroring would be
> >>> unfortunate.
> >>>
> >>> I also don't think that we should be defining required syslog messages.
> >>>
> >>> But the interesting question is whether something reasonable could be
> >>> done for vendor-agnostic traceability...
> >>
> >> Yes, that was my point.  This would be data that, in my mind, could be
> >> queriable via I2RS.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Alia
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 14, 2013 1:29 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]
> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      These look like things outside of the scope of I2RS>  I would not
> >>>      want to define message mirroring as part of the transport protocol
> >>>      requirements, for example.
> >>>
> >>>      yours,
> >>>      Joel
> >>>
> >>>      On 8/14/13 12:39 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> >>>
> >>>          Hi Joe,
> >>>
> >>>          I certainly agree that keeping logs of the APIs done and their
> >>>          results
> >>>          or, perhaps, having the ability to mirror the requests and
> >>>          responses to
> >>>          a collector would be useful.
> >>>
> >>>          With CLI, I agree that this is frequently done with syslog
> >>> today
> >>>          - which
> >>>          then necessitates vendor-specific code to scrape through.
> >>>
> >>>          What would be a meaningful accountability framework that
> >>> would be
> >>>          appropriate and, hopefully, not require vendor-specific
> >>>          screen-scraping?
> >>>
> >>>          Completely off the top of my head, I can see the following
> >>> ideas:
> >>>              (a) mirror all (or a meaningful subset) messages in/out
> >>> to a
> >>>          collector that then stores/sorts/logs the information
> >>>              (b) Define an accountability information model that
> >>> defines what
> >>>          should be stored and have it stored in the canonical form
> >>>          required by
> >>>          the selected data-model.  Perhaps mandate it be stored in a
> >>> file for
> >>>          acquisition?  Have the ability to read it?
> >>>
> >>>          and I'm sure that there are many others...
> >>>
> >>>          I do think this is an important area and it could use some
> good
> >>>          discussion (and even a draft or a section to go into the
> >>>          architecture).
> >>>
> >>>          Alia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke
> >>>          <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>>          <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>              On 8/14/13 12:11 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> >>>               > [Alia] I think that (1) belongs in the architecture.
> >>> I agree
> >>>              that it is
> >>>               > important - but I feel that the problem-statement
> >>> part is
> >>>          covered
> >>>              in the
> >>>               > Multi-Headed Control.
> >>>               > (2) is mostly covered in "Secure Control".  I did add
> >>> "Such
> >>>               > communications must also have its integrity protected."
> >>>          since we
> >>>              hadn't
> >>>               > mentioned integrity but just authentication and
> >>>          authorization.
> >>>               > For (3), I'm not sure what aspects specifically apply
> to
> >>>          I2RS...  We
> >>>               > have authentication and authorization and, in the
> >>>          architecture,
> >>>              tracking
> >>>               > of state written.  What knobs or functionality are you
> >>>          looking for in
> >>>               > accounting?
> >>>
> >>>              I'll comment here, and I'm sure Carlos will chime in with
> >>>          anything I
> >>>              miss or if he sees things differently.
> >>>
> >>>              Coming from a services/support mindset, accountability
> from
> >>>          a tracing
> >>>              point of view is important.  I would like to see a history
> >>>          of actions
> >>>              performed, the client that performed them, when the
> >>> actions were
> >>>              performed (with very granular timestamps), and the
> >>> result code.
> >>>
> >>>              Forgive me for using a vendor reference here (as an
> >>>          example), but in
> >>>              Cisco IOS we have the buffer of CLI commands executed
> >>> and syslog
> >>>              messages generated.  This buffer is very useful when it
> >>>          comes to tracing
> >>>              a crash back to potential triggers.  As we look to
> >>>          incorporate our own
> >>>              APIs, we want to provide the same kind of history log to
> >>> try
> >>>          and tie API
> >>>              calls back to potential problems on the device.
> >>>
> >>>              With I2RS in particular, while crashes are certainly
> >>>          possible, being
> >>>              able to look back at operations and correlate problems
> like
> >>>          packet loss,
> >>>              service interruption, performance deviations, etc. will be
> >>>          vital from a
> >>>              troubleshooting standpoint.
> >>>
> >>>              Joe
> >>>
> >>>              --
> >>>              Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
> >>>              SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
> >>>              Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
> >>>              Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867<tel:%2B1%20%28919%29%20392-2867>
> >>>          <tel:%2B1%20%28919%29%20392-__2867>         c
> >>>              i s c o  S y s t e m s
> >>>              Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>>          <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------__------------------------------__----------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          _________________________________________________
> >>>          i2rs mailing list
> >>>          [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>>          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/i2rs
> >>>          <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> i2rs mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
> SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
> Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
> Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867         c i s c o  S y s t e m s
> Email: [email protected]
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to