> [Don] I agree. We need to define semantics for the datastore and > predictable results for the writable running state or active > configuration. It seems to me if there is priorities and overlap > with various datastores there should be blocking or overriding of > ephemeral data too.
If we stuck to routing table state, rather than configuration state, then we probably wouldn't have such overlaps in the first place... Or rather the overlaps would be resolved through an 'administrative distance' sort of mechanism, and each individual write would be wholly atomic, meaning there would be no interlocking state changes. That we are talking about having interlocking state changes within a single device implies, to me, that we're far afield of the original intent of I2RS (?). :-) Russ _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
