Hi Sue,
I think Juergen's comment covers what I was referring to. Does this
answer your question / make sense?
Cheers,
Lou
On 2/2/2017 10:14 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> I do not understand your question, but the answer is likely 'no'.
>
> See Martin's email, perhaps that one helps.
>
> In RFC 7223, you can configure an interface that is not currently
> present. An interface is identified by a name and the interface
> configuration sits in the configuration datastore. When an interface
> starts to exist (e.g., a line card is inserted) that has a matching
> name, then the interface configuration with the same name is applied
> to it. This is RFC 7223 style pre-provisioning.
>
> /js
>
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:48:26AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
>> Lou and Juergen:
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to make sure I understand the pre-provisioning comment. What you are
>> referring to is the “when” statements in the clause below.
>>
>>
>>
>> augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface" {
>>
>> when "if:type = 'ianaift:ethernetCsmacd'";
>>
>>
>>
>> // operational state parameters for Ethernet interfaces
>> augment "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface" {
>> when "if:type = 'ianaift:ethernetCsmacd'";
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Sue Hares
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 4:14 PM
>> To: Lou Berger
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
>> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/2017 2:32 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:52:25PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>> Juergen,
>>>>
>>>> What precludes treating such dependencies in the same way
>>>> per-provisioning is handled by RFC7223?
>>>>
>>> This is fine. But having direct dependencies, e.g., leafrefs from
>>> config true leafs to config false leafs, is not.
>>>
>>> /js
>>>
>> Okay, then we're on the same page -- I think some may have missed the
>> possibility of handling references to dynamic topology information in
>> config using a 'pre-provisioning' approach.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would be happy to see Alex, Xufeng, Kent & Pavan articulate what this would
>>
>> look like and how it would work for the base topology model, so that the WG
>> can
>>
>> consider all potentially viable options. I'm not certain how it would
>> function for the
>>
>> recursive nature and it does presume the separate /config and /oper-state
>> trees in
>>
>> the data-model that were a concern (though certainly the current recommended
>>
>> approach for YANG models).
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Alia
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
