Martin, On 09/02/2015 06:42 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Can one of you give an example of how this word work for a device (which >>> may be physical or virtual) that allocates done resources, say interfaces >>> to one logical entity (router, system, etc) and other resources to a second >>> entity? And of course I want to manage all with yang and the first and >>> second (sub) entity must be completely independent and ignorant of each >>> other. > > [...] > >> The logical system knows only about itself: >> >> /interfaces >> /system > > This is important. > >> The / node is represented by <config> or <data> or <filter> in the protocol. >> >> <get-config> >> <source><running/></source> >> <filter> >> <interfaces /> >> <system /> >> </filter> >> </getconfig> >> >> Each logical system can have its own "eth0" interface or whatever. >> They are mapped to real interfaces in the physical system. >> >> All operations on the logical system are validated against its own >> virtual datastore. YANG validation does not work on individual array >> slices -- it only applies to an entire datastore. > > Yes. > >> On the physical server there needs to be a data model to manage the >> logical servers (as Martin suggested). >> >> <config> <--- root on PHY server >> <interfaces /> <--------------- contains the real interfaces, >> including eth23 >> <virtual-servers> >> <virtual-server> >> <name>vs1</name> >> <itf-map> >> <real-itf>eth23</real-itf> >> <vir-itf>eth0</vir-itf> >> <itf-map> >> <more-virtual-server-params ... /> >> <root> <----------- YANG mount point (virtual >> server root) >> <interfaces> >> <interface> >> <name>eth0</name> >> ... >> </interface> >> </interfaces> >> <system ... /> >> </root> >> </virtual-server> >> </virtual-servers> >> </config> > > I like this, but I would actually not use mount here. I don't think > it is necessary. This would be a model for devices that support > multiple 'virtual-servers' / 'logical-network-elements'. So in this > model you configure these logical-network-elements and allocate > resources like interfaces etc to them. For true virtual servers, > you'd also configure the NETCONF server and authentication params, > meaning that each such virtual server has its own config, which is > completely separate from the others. In this architecture, it would > not be correct to mount all the models in the virtual server list. >
We discussed this in the DT and (I think) agreed there is room / need for both approaches based on device owner/client management model (i.e., is the device owner responsible for client config, device owner without client view.) Do you have a reference for a model that can be used to support this, or just thinking one is needed? Thanks, Lou > > /martin > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
