Sam Aldrin <aldrin.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani
> > <mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg)
> >> <camob...@cisco.com <mailto:camob...@cisco.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Now, think about configuration parameters that have applied
> >> configuration located in more than one place. Let’s say you change the
> >> IP address of an interface, it is likely that this configuration will
> >> be passed around as input to a handful of subsystems (e.g. the DHCP
> >> server, some routing daemons that may bind to specific IP
> >> addresses). Is the intended and applied in sync when a specific subset
> >> of those configurations are updated. What happens if there’s a partial
> >> failure?
> >
> > This is a good example. Another example, and somebody on the call
> > today started to ask this but got cut off, relates to interfaces on
> > the device.
> >
> > Interfaces already exist on a system. As such they have a
> > configuration (default values) that exists on them. They are enabled
> > when configuration gets applied on them. They will have applied
> > configuration but no intended configuration. Should this be reported?
> >
> > Yet another example is of a BFD session that gets bootstrapped because
> > of a ping. There is no intended configuration, but the session exists
> > and a query of configuration in this case would return a valid BFD
> > session.
> >
> > Could we get some clarification (with examples, preferably) on what
> > the expectation is from a openconfig opstate perspective?
>
> Section 7 of draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate talks about
> that. Specifically, #3 talks about the interface question you raise..
I think it is important that we understand how this 'applied config'
is supposed to be populated on a device.
First it was said that it there is just one way they can be different;
time (on async systems). After some discussion I think there are now
four ways:
1. Time (in async systems).
2. Hardware. If something is in intended config but there is no hw
present, it is not in applied.
3. System-controlled stuff. If the system auto-creates an
interface (for example), it will be in the applied config but
not in intended.
4. "Template substitution"; the draft uses the example of an 'all'
interface that exists in intended config but not in applied.
Then Lada brought up the example of ip addresses. It was mentioned
on the call that for ip addresses there would be three lists; one for
intended, one for applied, and one in derived state, where the one in
derived state is what the box *really* uses. So for example if it
gets an ip from dhcp, it will be in the derived state list, but not in
applied config.
Why is this ip-address list different from the interface list? Why
was it enough with two lists for interfaces, but we need three for ip
addresses?
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
