Joe: I've updated the examples in the yang document. Here's my understanding with priorities (see ephemeral state requirements) with highest priority winning.
Set Intended configuration priority = 2 Dhcp configuration priority = 1 Ephemeral state = 3 Dhcp - would never update things, and I2RS would win over intended configuration. Set Intended configuration priority = 1 Dhcp configuration priority = 2 Ephemeral state = 3 Dhcp takes precedence (wins) over intended configuration - so dhcp received configurations are installed. Ephemeral state wins over dhcp values. Does this make sense? Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [i2rs] Question on opstate/ephemeral update Given the tight timing of the meeting, I don't want to derail things. If we have time, I'll raise this at the mic. But I do have a question on slide 2 of https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-i2rs-i2rs-opstate-and-e phemeral-00.pdf . I see DHCP along side the [I2RS] control plane DSes. I understand that the I2RS agent will handle the resolution of multiple client writes using priorities. But how does that play with DHCP or local config? In our ephemeral requirements draft we say that local config (<intended> in this drawing) would have a priority. And that in the <applied> state the device would have to resolve the local priorities with the "winning" config from the I2RS agent. But then DHCP writes a route. How will that be handled? I would like some clarity with respect to our priority requirements in the ephemeral state draft. Joe _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
