Hi Robert,
>> 3) I wish more modules would following the pattern of having the global
>> protocol accessible tree be defined via a "uses" of a grouping defined in
>> the module. In another recent project, I had to hack the topology modules
>> defined in RFC 8345 (to convert the containers to groupings) to enable a
>> multiplicity of "abstract network topologies" to be configured. The
>> assumption that only a single global instance is ever needed is proving to
>> be invalid in my work time and again.
>
> /me puts the co-author hat on.
>
> The multiplicity is already built-in into the model by the fact that network
> topologies is a top-level list.
>
> Would you mind sharing the use case what requires multiplicity of the
> built-in multiplicity?
>
> I know this sort-of is a re-hash of the ietf-interfaces discussion, but while
> there the use-case is well understood, I wonder what equivalent is there for
> networks/topologies.
I appreciate that the model supports a multiplicity of topologies, and can see
that it could support my needs, but my issue seems to arise in the intersection
of the following desires:
1) a server that supports multi-tenancy
2) each tenant being able to define a number of topologies
3) each tenant only being able to see their own topologies
4) the server not supporting object-level access control
5) the data-model being schema-mount like, whereby each tenant-instance
contains *all* tenant nodes (e.g., all leafrefs are relative paths that never
go above the tenant's subtree.
Kent
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
