I personally believe this notion of a system datastore is actually a bad idea. A loopback interface, for example, is system generated and it exists in operational but usually not in intended. I think it is wrong to think that a system datastore feeds into intended. After all, system config also comes and goes at the will of the system. I am not following this in detail but I fear this work likely creates more damage than that is solves serious real-world problems.
/js On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 09:45:56AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I think that the proposal is that <system> should feed into <intended> rather > than directly into <operational>. The reasoning for this is to allow > configuration to depend on system defined configuration during validation > without requiring that configuration to be copied into <running>. Clients > would still be allowed to explicitly express the system configuration is > running as well - e.g., if they wanted a full configuration that they can > validate off box. > > In your example below, I would probably mark the origin of the lo interface, > the name leaf, and description leaf as "intended", but the type is "system". > I think that this would be similar to how I would expect a default value to > be reported. I.e., if the running config explicitly sets a leaf to its > default value, I think that it is more informative to report that as origin > "intended" rather than "origin" default. But I don't think that RFC 8342 > proscribes what is be used in these cases. > > Regards, > Rob > > // As a contributor > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund > > Sent: 24 November 2021 10:44 > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Should the origin="system" be required for system > > configurations copied/pasted into <running>? > > > > Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 03:21:14AM +0000, maqiufang (A) wrote: > > > > > > > > But suppose the node is a list entry (e.g., an interface) or a leaf > > > > with the > > same value. In this case, it is not clear which origin should be used. I > > think it > > would be ok to use "system" in this case. > > > > > > For me, <running> is explicit config and hence it has precedence. The > > > precedence must be a function of how the datastores related, it should > > > not depend on which values a config leaf has. > > > > Here's a simple example. > > > > Suppose <system> has: > > > > <interface> > > <name>lo</name> > > <type>loopback</type> > > <description>added by system</description> > > </interface> > > > > and <intended> has: > > > > <interface> > > <name>lo</name> > > <description>set by a client</description> > > </interface> > > > > Now we follow the picture in RFC 8342: > > > > +------------+ > > | <intended> | // subject to validation > > | (ct, ro) | > > +------------+ > > | // changes applied, subject to > > | // local factors, e.g., missing > > | // resources, delays > > | > > dynamic | +-------- learned configuration > > configuration | +-------- system configuration > > datastores -----+ | +-------- default configuration > > | | | > > v v v > > +---------------+ > > | <operational> | <-- system state > > | (ct + cf, ro) | > > +---------------+ > > > > > > So now we merge intended and system into operational state. First we > > add system to get: > > > > <interface origin="system"> > > <name>lo</name> > > <type>loopback</type> > > <description>added by system</description> > > </interface> > > > > and then we add intended to arrive at: > > > > <interface origin="system"> > > <name>lo</name> > > <type>loopback</type> > > <description origin="intended">set by a client</description> > > </interface> > > > > > > Doesn't this make sense? > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
