[Thanks for removing NETCONF from the CC]
Hi Qiufang,
<snip>
> Right, the loopback interface is a common example but, more generally, I
> think "resource-independent” configuration might fall into exactly two
> categories:
>
> 1) config that is “applied” immediately
> - ex: interfaces/lo0/unit 0/family [ inet inet6 ]
> - ex: system/login/password/minimum-length=6
> - ex: system/ports/console-type=vt100
> - ex: system/syslog/archive-size=256k;
> - ex:
> chassis/cluster/fabric-monitoring/heartbeat-interval=1000;
> - ex: security/zones/security-zone/junos-host;
> - ex: security/alg/sip/inactive-media-timeout=120;
>
> 2) config that is “applied” only after being referenced by other
> config (e.g., ACLs)
> - ex: applications/ftp/…
> - ex: applications/tftp/...
> - ex: applications/smtp/…
> - ex: utm/custom-objects/Adult_Material/...
> - ex: utm/custom-objects/Religion/...
> - ex: utm/custom-objects/Gambling/…
> [Qiufang Ma] I don’t quite understand this kind of configuration, could you
> please expand? Do you mean that the predefined configurations for a certain
> application(e.g., ftp) will not take effect until being referenced/enabled?
For the second category, imagine <system> containing some predefined objects.
These objects follow the standard data-model allowed by the YANG. Operators
could have defined these objects as well but, because there may be hundreds of
these objects, and the objects are the same for everyone, the vendor decides to
pre-define them as a convenience for their customers. This way, operators only
have to define custom objects for what is unique in their environments. By
example, imagine this in <system>:
system-defined-defaults {
applications {
application ftp {
protocol tcp;
destination-port 21;
}
application tftp {
protocol udp;
destination-port 69;
}
application smtp {
protocol tcp;
destination-port 25;
}
...
}
}
And this in <running>
# custom objects
applications {
application my-app-1 {
protocol tcp;
destination-port 2345;
}
application my-app-2 {
protocol udp;
destination-port 69;
}
}
// an ACL policy referencing both sys-defined and custom objects
policy from-zone untrust to-zone untrust {
policy allow-external-access-to-foobar-app {
match {
source-address any;
destination-address any;
application [ ftp tftp, my-app-1,
my-app-2 ];
}
then {
permit;
}
}
}
Note that, <running> by itself would not pass validation, due to missing
leafrefs. Thankfully, NMDA never says that validation runs on <running>. But
once <running> and <system> have been merged, to become <intended>, the result
does pass validation.
> I am wondering if these configuration will present in the <operational>
> (which contains all the configuration actually used by the device) before
> they’re referenced.
I think that it would depend in the specific server’s behavior, regarding if
*unused* predefine objects are present in <operational>. Certainly the unused
objects would not have to be present in <operational>. If I were implementing
the server, the unused objects would NOT be present in <operational>.
> It would be good if we could determine if there are any other
> "resource-independent” configuration categories here.
> [Qiufang Ma] Do you think there exists conditional system configuration (if
> the preceding configurations you mentioned above is not)? For example, if SSH
> is enabled on a device, SSH-related keys are automatically generated. Such
> configurations are generated at the moment when a special functionality is
> enabled.
I’m unsure what you mean in general by "conditional configuration”, but I can
speak to your specific example. Though I must preface my comments that I
imagine there are a number of ways servers might go about enabling `sshd`.
What follows is my personal view, forged by being around systems for awhile ;)
In general:
- `sshd` is NOT enabled by default.
- `sshd` is enabled via a configuration knob.
- the SSH host key is dynamically generated the first time `sshd` is
enabled.
- the SSH host key itself is in <operational> (not <running>)
This view is consistent with the first paragraph in Section 3 of the “keystore”
draft (reproduced below):
3. Support for Built-in Keys
In some implementations, a server may support built-in keys. Built-
in keys MAY be set during the manufacturing process or be dynamically
generated the first time the server is booted or a particular service
(e.g., SSH) is enabled.
As a closing thought, this model (which I stated upfront may not be universal)
would have no presence-in or interaction-with <system>…though, perhaps, there
may be some predefined values for what key-algorithms and/or key-lengths to use
when generating the SSH host key...
> As for "resource-dependent” configuration, I wonder how this is supposed to
> work…more specifically, I wonder to what extent the IETF needs to care how if
> works (perhaps the same could be said for "resource-independent”
> configuration too). For instance, in JUNOS, there exists a config-template
> that is automatically applied to any user-defined interface, such as:
>
> junos-default-profile {
> interfaces {
> "$junos-interface-ifd-name" {
> unit "$junos-underlying-interface-unit" {
> family inet;
> family inet6;
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> Notably, RFC 8342 mentions templates as something that might be expanded when
> converting <running> to <intended>. Actually, knowing that it is <intended>
> that is subject to validation, it seems that much (if not all) of <system>
> should be consumed when converting <running> to <intended> - agreed?
> [Qiufang Ma] Do you mean that <intended> should include the system
> configuration which is generated due to the expansion of templates? I notice
> that RFC8342 says in sec.4.1
> “One of the observations:
> Some implementations have proprietary mechanisms that allow
> clients to define configuration templates in <running>. These
> templates are expanded automatically by the system, and the
> resulting configuration is applied internally.”
> So I am wondering whether the system-predefined config-template would be
> present in the <running> and updating <intended> through performed
> template-expansion.
> My understanding is that if the config-template is configured in <running>,
> the expanded configuration in the <intended> should still be the client
> configuration.
> If the template is preconfigured by the system, the configuration generated
> through performed template-expansion should be only present in the
> <operational> if not explicitly re-configured in <running> by the client.
Firstly, I again have to preface my comment that there are likely many ways
that templating mechanisms can be defined. But, in general, once a
templating mechanism has been defined, then it stands to reason that templates
could be defined either in <running> (by operators) or in <system> (by the
manufacturer). In one implementation I’m familiar with, the templates are
objects that are referenced/parameterized by other parts of the configuration.
(Same as with the predefined objects discussion above.)
To answer your questions:
1) Yes, it is my opinion that *activated* templates in <system> will be
expanded and present in <intended>.
2) I would never suggest that the system-defined templates are present in
<running>, though they may be referenced/parameterized by config in <running>.
3) if a config-template is configured in <running> (i.e., it is
operator-defined) then, yes, the expanded configuration in <intended> is
"client configuration” (note, "client configuration” is not a formal term).
That said, it seems fair to say that a template defined in <system> and then
referenced by "client configuration” in <running> is also expanded as "client
configuration” in <intended>.
4) I don’t not understand your last sentence, that the expansion of <system>
templates are only present in <operational>. Maybe you’re saying something
subtle, e.g., that servers currently don’t support GET on <intended>. But, in
theory, the expansion of <system> templates should (IMO) be present in
<intended>, so that they may be subject to validation. Of course, all the
<intended> configuration (whether originating in <running> or <system>) that is
successfully “applied” will also be present in <operational>.
<big snip>
> I’m beginning to think that:
> · auto-copying into <running> is likely never a good idea, because it
> violates the definition of <running>
> [Qiufang Ma] I am quite aware that different datastores in NMDA represents
> different views of data nodes. And <running> represents a configuration
> datastore holding the current configuration of the device.
> Should we consider system configuration also be part of current configuration
> of the device? From my perspective, the difference between system
> configuration and client-configuration lies only in who provides it.
<running> holds the current *operator-specified* configuration of the device.
System-provided configuration is NOT specified by operators (though
system-defined objects may be referenced by operator-specified config in
<running>). I believe that this arrangement is consistent with the definition
of <running>. Agreed?
> · having in <operational> doesn’t make sense, since the tweaks
> wouldn’t go thru <running> --> <intended> validation.
>
> I’m wondering if a model like below would work for everyone - thoughts?
> [Qiufang Ma] <intended> represents the configuration after all configuration
> transformations to <running> have been performed, so I think it is only
> coupled to <running>.
> Anyway, the <system> should also interacts with <operational>. Agreed?
I don’t agree that <intended> must only be coupled to <running>. Specifically,
I think that it is okay (compatible with NMDA) to define a <system> that also
impacts <intended>. This is the only (IMO) sane approach, as it enables the
combination <running> + <system> to be validated.
>
> Best Regards,
> Qiufang Ma
Cheers,
Kent // contributor
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
