Deleting some of older emails On Oct 1, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
> Continuing in line, although this may get too deep: >> >> That is opening a can of worms. You can not allow deletion of data >> that is not owned by the client. That can create instability of the >> system and the network. Using your example, I2RS client should enter >> a new static route or policy statement that would nullify the >> existing one. > > One can argue that all of I2RS is a can of worms. But I don't think that is > reasoanble. > > Your proposal would mean that if the goal of the I2RS client was to cause a > specific route, that had been pinned by the operator, to follow dynamic > routing instead, then the I2RS client would ahve to monitor the rib for any > non-applied changes, mirror the rib manager logic, and manually update the > static route with the answer the rib manager would have produced if the > static route were not there? Please keep in mind that we are proposing only a single data store for I2RS. If I2RS client has to read/write/delete from a different store, use different mechanism to do so. > > Seems rather complex and error prone for a reasonable policy hammer. > One of the agreements reached in teh I2RS work early on is that if the > operator wants to shoot his foot using I2RS and produce a really painful > configuration, then he is free to do so. Yes, you are fully right on this topic and I agree with it. > > Yours, > Joel _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
