My read of the ephemeral state requirements in this regard (3.4) was
that we are simply assigning Intended Conifg and the specific other
cynamic control protocols priorities in the same space we are using for
deciding between I2RS clients in the case of conflict.
So if I2RS Clients have priorities ranging from min+2 to Max-2, then
assuming higher is better, to get the result in your first example, one
would set intended to min-1 and dhcp to min-2.
And the reverse for your second example.
As an operator, one could assign ones clients priorities in various
ranges, and arrange the dhcp and intended config priorities at other
points to get more complex results.
And of course, one could set dhcp to max+1 and intended config to max+2
to max I2RS yield to all the others, and intended config take precedence
over everything.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/16/16 4:10 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
Joe:
I've updated the examples in the yang document. Here's my understanding
with priorities (see ephemeral state requirements) with highest priority
winning.
Set
Intended configuration priority = 2
Dhcp configuration priority = 1
Ephemeral state = 3
Dhcp - would never update things, and I2RS would win over intended
configuration.
Set
Intended configuration priority = 1
Dhcp configuration priority = 2
Ephemeral state = 3
Dhcp takes precedence (wins) over intended configuration - so dhcp received
configurations are installed. Ephemeral state wins over dhcp values.
Does this make sense?
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [i2rs] Question on opstate/ephemeral update
Given the tight timing of the meeting, I don't want to derail things.
If we have time, I'll raise this at the mic.
But I do have a question on slide 2 of
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-i2rs-i2rs-opstate-and-e
phemeral-00.pdf
. I see DHCP along side the [I2RS] control plane DSes. I understand that
the I2RS agent will handle the resolution of multiple client writes using
priorities.
But how does that play with DHCP or local config? In our ephemeral
requirements draft we say that local config (<intended> in this drawing)
would have a priority. And that in the <applied> state the device would
have to resolve the local priorities with the "winning" config from the I2RS
agent. But then DHCP writes a route. How will that be handled?
I would like some clarity with respect to our priority requirements in the
ephemeral state draft.
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
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
