The unit of data for collisions is to be specified as part of the
relevant information models. Trying to define that architecturally
seemed counter-productive.
In terms of collisions with things in the box, there are two cases.
1) Collision between I2RS and CLI. The CLI is assign a priority. That
way the operator can choose how they want that resolved.
2) Collision between other processes and I2RS is handled by the system
in the same way it handles collisions between those processes and CLI.
Again, the guiding principle is "keep it simple."
Yours,
Joel
On 1/14/14 9:09 PM, Mach Chen wrote:
Hi Joel,
We discussed various models of conflict resolution for the case when one client
adjusts a piece of data, and then another client goes to change that data.
Are there any specifications about the unit of the "data" ? I did not find this
in the architecture and IM documents.
decide what to do, while the clients sort out what was intended. Rather than
pure FCFS, we decided to have client priorities.
So, each client will have its own priority and the priorities are comparable
among the clients. But there are other entities(e.g., the control plane, a.k.a,
ISIS, OSPF, BGP etc.) that may changes the data as well, how to handle the
conflicts between the clients and non-clients?
Best regards,
Mach
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:43 PM
To: KwangKoog Lee
Cc: [email protected]; Guanxiaoran
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Multi-Headed Control
While I will try to paraphrase things to answer your question, I recommend you
read the archtiecture draft to get more details.
The assumption is that normally different I2RS clients will be asking the agent
to
perform operations which change different pieces of data.
We discussed various models of conflict resolution for the case when one client
adjusts a piece of data, and then another client goes to change that data. We
decided that this was an error, and that we wanted a simple mechanism to
decide what to do, while the clients sort out what was intended. Rather than
pure FCFS, we decided to have client priorities. And that clients could arrange
(easily) to be notified of changes to data they are interested in.
The goal is to keep the mechanisms very lightweight, particularly in order to
support very high rates of operations.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/14/14 10:29 AM, KwangKoog Lee wrote:
I do not fully understand the data model of i2rs. But in case that
many clients interact forwarding devices with the i2rs-enabled control
plane, various policies about routing, signaling, qos and etc. from
multiple clients or multiple upper users (network applications) can be
set to those devices and to prevent or negotiate some collision of
multiple policies, such a machanism might be necessary regardless of netconf?
Joel or anyone can explain more why it does not need? Thanks in advance.
best regards,
Kwang-koog Lee
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As I read the documents, locking is specifically not the approach
I2RS is taking. So I think that "<lock>" does not suffice to
resolve the I2RS needs, and is in fact not part of the current I2RS
arhtiecture at all.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/14/14 4:17 AM, Guanxiaoran wrote:
Hi,
I've a question about i2rs multi-headed control and NETCONF.
[draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-__statement-00] describes:"Additional
extensions to handle multi-headed control may need to be added
to NetConf and/or appropriate data models."
[draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-__00] describes:"The current
recommendation is to have a simple priority associated with each
I2RS clients, and the highest priority change remains in effect."
As NETCONF has <lock> mechanism: "The <lock> operation allows
the client to lock the entire configuration data-store system of
a device. Such locks are intended to be short-lived and allow a
client to make a change without fear of interaction with other
NETCONF clients, non-NETCONF clients (e.g., SNMP and CLI), and
human users."
Do we still need to do the extensions, i.e. additional
extensions to handle multi-headed control added to NETCONF?
Regards,
Ran
_________________________________________________
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] <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
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
