On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.)
How does this work in YANG exactly? How does the "foo" container get rooted under "/" in 1 server implementation and get rooted under "/device" in another server implementation? I am confused as to why this would be considered a feature and not a bug. > Do you have a reference for a model that can be used to > support this, or just thinking one is needed? > > Thanks, > Lou > > > > /martin > > > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
