Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > > I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
> > > to rearrange existing models into a beautiful hierarchy (for some
> > > definition of beauty).
> >
> > This would be pretty complicated. Suppose I define my own beautiful
> > structure like this:
> >
> > container my-interfaces {
> > x:mount-point "if" {
> > x:mount-module "ietf-interfaces";
> > }
> > }
> > container my-routing {
> > x:mount-point "rtr" {
> > x:mount-module "ietf-routing";
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Note that with the mount-point defined in my draft, each mount-point
> > becomes itw own "jailed" or "chrooted" tree. So references cannot
> > cross mount points.
>
> Could be the same here.
>
> > In this case, we have references between ietf-routing and
> > ietf-interfaces. How would they work?
>
> How do they work in your solution? If interfaces is jailed and routing
> is jailed, how does routing refer to the interfaces?
My solution does not support "name module mount". It only supports
mouting of a "complete" set of modules (that are chrooted) - simply
because this is what we understand, have implemented, and have been
running for the last ~5 years. (The same goes for ODL, I believe).
[Side note: we do have experience with something similar to alias
mount. we called it "symlink", and it was a huge mistake; specifially
related to the non-chrooted behaviour, when references in the
symlink target model could point out of the symlinked subtree.]
/martin
> > What happens with the references if I do:
> >
> > container my-interfaces1 {
> > x:mount-point "if1" {
> > x:mount-module "ietf-interfaces";
> > }
> > }
> > container my-interfaces2 {
> > x:mount-point "if2" {
> > x:mount-module "ietf-interfaces";
> > }
> > }
> > container my-routing {
> > x:mount-point "rtr" {
> > x:mount-module "ietf-routing";
> > }
> > }
>
> Why is this any different in yours or Lada's solution? The question
> what is accessible to whom is I think independent from the question
> whether the schema mounted at a mount point is fixed in a schema or
> described at runtime only, no?
>
> /js
>
> PS: I am asking these maybe stupid questions just in an attempt to
> understand the designs on the table. I have no opinion about what
> the 'right' solution is yet.
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
