Lou, Speaking as an embedded device developer, I think the point here is that up until today there are not very many systems that specifically show the applied config in exactly the same "syntax" as used for providing the intended config. Yes, the applied config can be implied from the output of show commands, but not in a way that is directly correlatable to the config the operator intended, by either operators themselves or by automation tools.
I completely agree that providing a mechanism whereby management systems and operators can easily see the correlation is important, but we do have to realize that this will likely be a non-trivial exercise for embedded systems to support this in the way the "opstate" draft or any other draft intends for the distributed or asynchronous use cases, and I speak from experience based on some work we are currently undertaking on similar ideas and applying them to existing embedded systems. Cheers, Einar On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:25, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net<mailto:lber...@labn.net>> wrote: > 2. An informal round of conversations with some vendors as well as some > tooling vendors show that there are currently no widely known platforms > that allow for observing the intended and applied state separately. A > common architecture includes a central configuration data store that is > being updated by the manageability framework and updates read by the > subsystems affected by the change (e.g. the BGP service or the interface > manager). In this case, there is no other source of configuration except > for the content of the data store. While this narrow statement is true, every system I know about can provide the equivalent of applied config state via show commands.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
