On 7/18/16 13:39, Susan Hares wrote:
Joe:

We discussed  "treating "local config" (e.g., CLI changes) as an I2RS client
with its own I2RS priority" in order so that priority concept can resolve
conflict.  REQ-07 is a bit broader because we tagged this to the two "Knobs"
that section 6.3.1 described.  (see below) in the IETF architecture
document.   If you think the priority concept can provide the support for
the two switches and use case below, could you describe it on the list.

The architecture uses the term "overwrite," but I think at least in some cases we mean, "overlay." Anyway, I'll explain using the architecture terms.

I think the idea of extending I2RS priority to local config operators (e.g., CLI) will still work. Let's take knob 1. Knob 1 is kind of like the on/off switch. If I don't want I2RS to have any effect on operational state, I'd have this off. In the I2RS priority case, by default my local config could will have the highest priority (let's say that's 255 to make it concrete). In this case no ephemeral config can win.

When I turn I2RS "on", the priority of local config drops to the lowest priority (let's say 1, again to be concrete).

Okay, that's knob 1.

Now in the case of knob 2, I want to allow local config to win sometimes. In the example in the architecture, I may want to overwrite ephemeral config every night at 11 pm. In this case, I can increase the priority of local config to be higher than the last ephemeral I2RS client write, thus overwriting that change.

Again, this allows local config to behave like an I2RS client respective to the priority.

Joe


Your point is the last remaining point.

Sue
===============================



Section 6.3.1
=============
   The policy settings in the architecture is:

Knob 1: Ephemeral configuration overwrites Local Configuration.
Knob 2: Update of Local Configuration value supersedes and
      overwrites the ephemeral configuration.


                           Existence                              Updates
                          Policy Knob 1                       Policy Knob 2
Situation
                       ===================     ==================
   Router A     ephemeral has                     ephemeral  has
Ephemeral  is active
                         priority                                 priority .


   Router B    Local Configuration            Local Configuration
Ephemeral is recorded in Agent,
                       has priority                           has priority
but not used.  Can be turned on by
        
turning knob 1 to "ephemeral has priority".

   Router C    ephemeral has priority      Local Configuration
Nightly configuration overwrite

Ephemeral.


-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 10:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs. ephemeral)

As I stated at the mic today, I think the way REQ-07 is written is a bit
broad.  This was evidently the intent, but I have a proposal.

Can we not treat "local config" (e.g., CLI changes) as an I2RS client with
its own I2RS priority?  If all players (I2RS and local config) play with the
same priority concept, then one can easily control what gets precedence.

For example, if I want to temporarily overlay ephemeral-provided changes
with local config, I could increase the local config priority.  When I'm
done with that, I set the priority back.  By default, the local config
priority would be the lowest value to allow for ephemeral changes to take
precedence.

I do not think this will have a negative impact on topology as I have read
it, but if this doesn't make sense in some use cases, the priority could be
ignored.

Hopefully I've described this well so that it makes sense.

Joe

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs


_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to