Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 25/02/2016 09:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:14:05AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:43:34AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think the use cases are rather obvious. I build a device and I like
> >>>>>>>> to rearrange existing models into a beautiful hierarchy (for some
> >>>>>>>> definition of beauty).
> >>>>>>> This would be pretty complicated. Suppose I define my own beautiful
> >>>>>>> structure like this:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> container my-interfaces {
> >>>>>>> x:mount-point "if" {
> >>>>>>> x:mount-module "ietf-interfaces";
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> container my-routing {
> >>>>>>> x:mount-point "rtr" {
> >>>>>>> x:mount-module "ietf-routing";
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note that with the mount-point defined in my draft, each mount-point
> >>>>>>> becomes itw own "jailed" or "chrooted" tree. So references cannot
> >>>>>>> cross mount points.
> >>>>>> Could be the same here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In this case, we have references between ietf-routing and
> >>>>>>> ietf-interfaces. How would they work?
> >>>>>> How do they work in your solution? If interfaces is jailed and routing
> >>>>>> is jailed, how does routing refer to the interfaces?
> >>>>> My solution does not support "name module mount". It only supports
> >>>>> mouting of a "complete" set of modules (that are chrooted) - simply
> >>>>> because this is what we understand, have implemented, and have been
> >>>>> running for the last ~5 years. (The same goes for ODL, I believe).
> >>>> OK. I understand now that the whole set of modules on a mount point
> >>>> form one chroot environment. This was not clear to me yet but of
> >>>> course makes a lot of sense. So a static schema mount would have to
> >>>> define a set of modules and not just a single module to lead to the
> >>>> same chrooted behavior.
> >>> Yes, but then you can't use it to define your own beautiful
> >>> structure.
> >> I am not sure yet why this is the case.
> > Each such mount point is chrooted. This implies that if you want to
> > put module A in some place, and B has a reference to A, A and B must
> > be mounted together. Thus I cannot put them anywhere to form a
> > beautiful hierarchy.
>
> As long as B is mounted in the same datastore as A then is it possible
> that B could moved to be mounted on some other path?
Yes, but then you'd need some special syntax to say that they are
related.
> References to/from B would need to be fixed up, or are you saying that
> fixing the references is intractable?
I think it would be extremely complicated, both on the server and on
the client side.
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
