Chris,
> On Jul 16, 2022, at 6:19 PM, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> writes: > >> Btw this independent attempt by two WG groups to normalize link state >> data is a clear proof that the YANG model has failed here. > > I'm not sure which "YANG model" you are referring to here (perhaps you just > mean YANG in general?), but I don't think YANG itself has failed at all. Has > anyone even tried to attack this problem directly using it yet? > > I'm pretty sure that GRPC is being used by google for telemetry, I don't know > if they're using it for LSDB information or not, but they have the > infrastructure setup for it obviously. I'm pretty sure Microsoft is doing > similar stuff to google with YANG modeled data as well. gNMI streaming for OC IGP models is a thing. See container link-state-database: https://github.com/openconfig/public/blob/master/release/models/isis/openconfig-isis.yang <https://github.com/openconfig/public/blob/master/release/models/isis/openconfig-isis.yang> > > FWIW, YANG is a modeling language describing structured data, the transport > is just as important here, and NETCONF or RESTCONF probably aren't the ones > to use for your application. Maybe someone needs to look into marrying the > correct transport, with the correct YANG modeled data and describe a system > that would do what you want using existing technologies. In Google-OC-land, gNMI is the mechanism generally being used for such things. I've not been properly monitoring netconf recently, but I believe RFC 8640 is intended to provide the analogous IETF service. -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
