+1
From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on
behalf of Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com<mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>
Date: Monday 19 October 2015 12:14
To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>, Martin
Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com<mailto:m...@tail-f.com>>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
<netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #3: Is there a requirement for asynchronous
systems to provide a blocking config update?
On 16/10/2015 22:32, Kent Watsen wrote:
Will there ever be a server that operates in synchronous mode, given
that applied will not match intended if hardware is missing?
Will a client ever use "block" mode if it means that it might hang
forever (or at least until some hw is plugged in)?
I think the key is in the phrase "The server MUST fully *attempt* to
apply..."
+1.
In my view, the server does not have to "fully apply", it merely has to
have attempted to do so. Essentially, a request comes in resulting in a
flurry of activity, that ultimately stabilizes, at which point the
response can be sent.
I agree.
If a line card is missing, then (as I understand it), the server would not
wait for the line-card to show up.
I agree.
That said, if the client requested
transactional/atomic update, a missing line-card would cause an immediate
failure/rollback.
Yes, I think that this is probably right, given that the applied leaves
cannot match the intended config leaves. But this might need some
further thought to check that the behaviour is sane with regards devices
that support pre-configuration.
Thanks,
Rob
Makes sense?
Kent // as a contributor
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
