Yasuhiro:
<developer hat on>
In my developer hat, I agree with you and Andy.
As an Implementer I have created a mechanism that will easily re-evaluate
queue a re-evaluation of all routes which client priority changes.
Here's the back structure:
Per connection :
Session-id - pointer to structure which has
1) customer pointer --> customer-id, priority, opaque id
(this is part of a list of clients ordered by customer id,
followed by priority)
2) transport pointer ---> transport ID (src IP/src-port/dst
IP/dst-port)
3) last rcv action info --> seq #, function (read/write/rpc)
4) last response info --> (read rsp, write rsp, rpc response,
5) notification- seq #, function,
Client 1 could have:
Client-1, 5, xyz
And have a priority change (due to AAA) to
Client-1, 3, zzz
My client table would have
Pointer 1 - Local config, 5, null
Pointer 2 - client-1, 8, xyz
Pointer 3 - client-1, 3, zzz
Pointer 4 - client 3, 6, bbb'
My transport table
My session ID table would have
Entry 1: Customer pointer - pointer 1
Transport-pointer - null
Last action info - null
Last response info - null
Last notification - null
Entry 2: Customer pointer - pointer 2
Transport pointer - transport-pointer-1
Last receive action info - 5, write
Last response info - 5, write-rsp
Last notification - 1, notify-rpc
Entry 3: Customer pointer - pointer 3
Transport pointer - transport-pointer-1
Last action info - 6, write
Last response info - 6 write-response
Last notification - 3, notify write
Entry 4: Customer pointer - pointer 4
Transport pointer - transport-pointer-2
Last receive action info - null
Last response - null
Last notify - null
Each route has:
Route (A)
---> session-id pointer
---> rt_rtc - route change structure
---> which has pointer to session ID of client requesting
change.
If the session-id changes because the customer-id changes, then a background
process walks the route list comparing customer-pointer, and new
customer-pointer. If it find a new customer pointer, then it
places a rt_rtc request structure into the route, and links the route to a
change structure. If we have 10,000 routes associated with a client,
then the background process changes the routes in groups - until all routes
on are processed.
[A million routes could be handled by the I2RS route updates, but the
processing time would exceed the time for a simple BGP - so I think this is
not the target for I2RS].
While this background process is running, if a new route write (rpc or
write) for a specific route comes - then the route processes the comparison
with client route.
The rt_rtc change structure would record two changes:
a) the initial routes change to new priority
b) the new routes change via a client-3 for route-id with a higher
priority,
then the new route change takes precedence.
The I2RS agent, can respond to the I2RS client-3 that the write succeeds.
1) To Entry 4 would add a write sequence #1, response #1] ,
2) to Entry 2 Notify (sequence #4) to client-1 that its write has been
overwritten by a higher priority client
I agree that if you do not re-process the routes associated with an I2RS
client,
the priority values are out of sync and some comparison fail that should
have succeeded.
I disagree with the WG decision to not process priority changes to
individual routes. If people wanted to indicate that the processing of the
priority change did not need to be immediately, I think the background
process works. If this is what the WG meant, then I think this is
reasonable.
One thing the text says, is that ephemeral routes are compared with a
priority, and then ephemeral is compared against Local Configuration. Your
assignment illustrates the point, so I did not correct it.
<developer hat off>
<WG chair hat on>
The WG had a long discussion, and came to agreement on not processing past
routes.
However, I am raising the issue for until 8/1/2016 when I will start a 1
week WG LC on the changes put in ephemeral state.
Russ White will judge this WG LC since I am a co-author on the ephemeral
state draft.
<WG hat off>
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yasuhiro Ohara
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:12 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs.
ephemeral)
I think I tend to agree with Andy.
I couldn't read all the draft yet so I may be missing something important,
please correct me then.
First, I think we definitely is going to need the re-evaluation of all
routes when the client priority changes.
(I think this is against the WG's discussion today)
Given that the priority of Local-config: 5 and of Client-A: 8, suppose we
have:
A.B.C.D/M nexthop Y, by Client-A, priority 8 (best) A.B.C.D/M nexthop X, by
Local-config, priority 5
then Client-A changed its priority to 3.
If we don't re-evaluate:
A.B.C.D/M nexthop Y, by Client-A, priority 3 (best) A.B.C.D/M nexthop X, by
Local-config, priority 5 which is very odd situation to me.
[Sue: I agree with this point. My solution processes the priority change. ]
With re-evaluation:
A.B.C.D/M nexthop X, by Local-config, priority 5 (best) A.B.C.D/M nexthop Y,
by Client-A, priority 3 I think this should be the correct behavior.
[Sue: I agree with you.]
Similar things happen if we have Client-B with priority 6.
I think we should have the list of clients in the agent.
Client-A: priority 8
Client-B: priority 6
[Sue: I have listed created a list of clients. See my methodology above. ]
Then all the client have to do to change his priority is to let the agent
know that the change of priority 8->3.
[Sue: You have to know which routes are associated with the client. If the
client changes the priority,
then you have to re-evaluate it. If you are gathering a set of changes per
route from multiple clients or
from multiple writes, then the route changes structure could be useful.
That will be way much less from the huge traffic that we would be needed to
change when millions of routes are related to the Client-A.
[Sue: Here, we never assumed that the client would send the different
priority. We assumed this priority came from AAA changing the priority.
Therefore, the real challenge is the processing of the change in priority
per route. ]
I may be missing the context totally... sorry in the case.
[Sue: 90% correct, the only thing not aligned with my answer is the client
ID priority is changed by AAA (radius, diameter or some other AAA process).
Best regards,
Yasu
Thank you for the question.
From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs.
ephemeral)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:37:51 -0700
Message-ID:
<CABCOCHRA1_ZGChup9UT=nampx2gpd88e6mtw8mbxb9_1bw9...@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
the text in REQ-07 does not say anything about client identity, but
Sue's comments in the NETCONF WG meeting indicate that the client ID
is saved, not the priority.
This does not seem to work if client priority can change.
If priority is changed, then it seems that all the overlays affected
need to be adjusted so the operational state reflects the new priority.
It seems to me that I2RS will require per-node storage of a client ID
and a priority to prevent this re-evaluation.
However, if the operator changes a client-ID priority they probably
want all the nodes re-evaluated. This applies to ephemeral-only, not
just local config vs. ephemeral.
Andy
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Joe Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/20/16 05:10, Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at
Cisco)
wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, but I can't make the I2RS meeting because I'm presenting at
the end of NETCONF.
I've spoken to Sue and understand that the requirement isn't
changing here - just the text to describe it.
I think that I'm OK with this new text.
One suggestion: Possibly It might help if the text made it clear
that the priotiy resolution applies to the complete set of ephemeral
config vs the complete set of local config. I.e. the requirement is
not asking for priority resolution between the two config sets on a
per datanode basis.
Yes, I had assumed that in my text, but I agree, this should be clear.
i,
Functionally, in my head, I imagine local config to act like an I2RS
client. Clients don't have a per-data node priority. They have an
overall priority.
Is this consistent with what you're stating here?
Joe
But I strongly support getting the requirements draft completed, and
hence I suspect that whatever text that you agree in the 2nd I2RS
meeting will be fine.
Thanks,
Rob
Sent from my XperiaT tablet
---- Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote ----
On 7/20/16 03:42, Susan Hares wrote:
Joe:
Yes - you are correct. Can you help me state this requirement -07
better?
What about:
Ephemeral-REQ-07: Ephemeral configuration and local configuration
MUST each have a priority. This priority will determine whether
ephemeral configuration or local configuration take precedence. The
I2RS protocol MUST support this mechanism.
Is this clear and correct enough?
Joe
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Clarke [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:40 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'Russ White'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs.
ephemeral)
On 7/20/16 02:18, Susan Hares wrote:
<WG hat off> <author hat on>
Here's text that might replace it:
Ephemeral-REQ-07: Ephemeral configuration state MUST be able to
set a priority on local configuration and ephemeral state. Based
on this priority implementations MUST be able to provide a
mechanism to choose which takes precedence. The I2RS Protocol MUST
be able to support this
mechanisms.
Any thoughts?
I'm a bit confused by the first sentence. I think what you're
stating is that both ephemeral and local configurations MUST have a
priority.
This priority will determine whether ephemeral configuration or
local configuration take precedence. The I2RS protocol MUST
support this mechanism.
Am I correct in my interpretation?
Joe
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ White [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:09 AM
To: 'Joe Clarke'; 'Susan Hares'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs.
ephemeral)
(wg chair hat off) --
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.
I wanted to extend Joe's remarks a bit... On reflection, I
actually think having priority + "this wins" bits is rather
confusing, and opens the door to all sorts of strange behavior.
Say I have two items thus --
Local config item -- priority 100
I2RS config item -- priority 200, don't overwrite bit set
If the higher priority is supposed to win, then which item should
the operator find in the resulting running config? Should it be
the I2RS version, because the priority is higher, or the local
config, because the "don't overwrite" bit is set? There doesn't
seem to be any clear way to interpret such a situation.
It's better to have a single "thing" that determines which
configuration among many wins, rather than two.
-r
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
