----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Bjorklund" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:57 PM > t.petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is it, though, the right approach for I2RS? I see the rationale of I2RS > > as being able to take a holistic view of the routing system, not one > > based on where the information is coming from (a view that may make > > sense when building boxes or installing them). > > > > Rather, I am minded of problems I have been called upon to resolve which > > are the result of misconfiguration, misconfiguration which is not > > apparent because the integrated view of what is controlling the box is > > not available. For example, a static route is inserted to circumvent a > > quirk of topology, the quirk is fixed but the static route is not > > removed, the topology changes again and that static route becomes a > > liability. Being able to see everything at once makes the problem > > apparent, looking for a configuration error or a BGP error separately is > > fruitless. > > > > My sense is that I2RS needs an integrated view whereas NETCONF/YANG > > focus on the configuration (as their RFC explicitly state). YANG is a > > good start, but as Andy said at IETF89, not enough. > > I am not sure I what you mean by "integrated view". > > One reason for separating config from operational state is to make > sure the view of operational state is exactly what is really currently > in use. So if a static route has been configured, and it really is in > use, it will show up in the operational state (marked as being a > static route). > > Isn't the "integrated view" the complete operational state? If not, > how is it different?
Martin >From what you say, then yes, it is. Is it always the case that an entry in a config list is replicated in the matching operational state list for some meaning of the word matching? If so, then how is matching defined? Is it up to each individual model to specify this in the description? Lada says "have to be populated with at least one entry in any properly functioning device, and additional entries may be configured by the user." which fits the case of routers but this issue occurred in 2013 for interfaces, system, routing, ... and my expectation is that it will occur in most models. Except that with routing, you may have 350k entries in the operational state list and none in the config list, whereas in other models, the common case may have many entries in the config list and few or none system-controlled ones in which case, I am uncertain if the same logic should apply. I think that more explanation is still needed. Tom Petch > > /martin > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
