"Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <bart.boga...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <bart.boga...@nokia.com> wrote: > > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com] > > Sent: 05 September 2016 12:41 > > To: Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE) > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] BBF extensions to ietf-entity > > > > "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <bart.boga...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <bart.boga...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > In BBF this pointer from HW to interface will be available (it > > > > has been proposed in the Berling BBF meeting already). > > > > > > I assume this is done as an augmentation? Is it an augmentation > > > to the interface list, or to the hardware list? I.e., is it a > > > pointer from an interface to the hardware, or the other way around? > > > [Bart Bogaert] It is an augmentation to the hardware list > > > > Ok. Would it be possible to have the pointer the other way around? > > If not, why? > > > > [Bart Bogaert] So you mean from entity to interfaces? Similar to > > the "stack" in interfaces we assumed it more logical to point from > > the higher to the lower layer. That is the reason why the reference > > is from the interface to the entity. > > Aha, I mis-read your text "augemntation to the hardware list" as > meaning that the augment target was the hardware list. > > Good, I agree that the pointer from the high-level to lower-level is better. > > So then my question remains; why isn't the pre-provisioning handled in > the interface layer, and the hardware list is purely for monitoring? > > [Bart Bogaert] Can you explain exactly what you mean by this > statement? The link is there to connect the HW to the logical > interfaces defined on top of this HW. It also allows "visualization" > on management GUIs to which HW an interface is linked. Is this what you mean by "monitoring"?
You explained that the reason for making the hardware list configurable was
to allow pre-provisioning:
2. the network operator determines that a node will "run out" of
available ports and hence wants to start planning new
configuration and hence he wants to configure some boards in the
empty slots and even may want to start to pre-configure certain
data of the ports contained by these boards. In that case we
need the RW leaf to indicate which board type will be inserted
as the service that can be offered depends on the board being inserted.
When the board is inserted, the planned configuration can
directly be applied to the newly inserted board (given the fact
that the detected class is the same
My comment was that pre-provisioning can be handled by the interface layer,
rather than the hardware layer.
But maybe you are right in the sense that if we support any config true
parameters for the hardware, we should also support pre-provisioning of
these parameters.
What kind of data do you expect the operator to be able to pre-configure in
this list?
[Bart Bogaert] Assume you would have a node with a number of slots (which
are currently empty - so no board has been plugged yet) then it should be
possible for an operator to plan a configuration meaning that a board can
planned to be present in the first slot and that e.g. mgf-name, model-name,
parent-rel-pos and may be other parameters could be configured by the
operator. In case there is a more "extensive" HW stacking we may also have
to allow setting of the class of an entity, indicate in which entity the new
entity will be created (so reflecting in setting of a contained-in leaf in
the RW section)
/Bart
/martin
>
>
> /martin
>
>
> >
> > Bart
> >
> >
> > /martin
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bart
> > >
> > > I would prefer to view the hardware list as just monitoring
> > > (config
> > > false) [1], and have config true pointers from the higher-level
> > > concepts back to the hardware [2]. Possibly with config false
> > back-pointers.
> > >
> > > [1] this doesn't preclude the config true list in current ietf-entity.
> > >
> > > [2] this pointer is (as noted) often implicit in the interface
> > > name
> today.
> > >
> > >
> > > /martin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards - Vriendelijke groeten, Bart Bogaert
> > > > Broadband-Access System Architect Data Contact number +32 3
> > > > 2408310
> > > > (+32 477 673952)
> > > >
> > > > NOKIA
> > > > Copernicuslaan 50, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium Fortis 220-0002334-42
> > > > VAT BE
> > > > 0404 621 642 Register of Legal Entities Antwerp
> > > >
> > > > <<
> > > > This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
> > > > information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and
> > > > is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> > > > should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or
> > > > distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based
> > > > on it, is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of its
author.
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com]
> > > > Sent: 29 August 2016 11:06
> > > > To: Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)
> > > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] BBF extensions to ietf-entity
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > [We had mail server problems during the weekend, so this reply
> > > > might not get the thread's history right.]
> > > >
> > > > "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <bart.boga...@nokia.com> wrote:
> > > > > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <bart.boga...@nokia.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I would like to bring this to the ietf-entity group.
> > > > > > Currently BBF is proposing to add new RW leafs to the entity
> > > > > > object. This is done in the context of plugable entities
> > > > > > and hence it means that when an operator (via a NC client)
> > > > > > configures a plugable item it is required to define the
> > > > > > entity type. For this reason additional RW attributes are
needed.
> > > > > > Two of the new leafs are class and contained-in (same as
> > > > the RO class leaf).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - class: we think that the class leaf needs to be
> mandatory
> > > but
> > > > > > adding this via an augment is not possible as we can't add a
> > > > > > mandatory leaf via an augment. Making class implicit for
> > > > > > the client based on "some information" exchanged between
> > > > > > device vendors and management applications is maybe not such
> > > > > > a sound
> > > approach.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you explain in more detail how this would be used? The
> > > > > idea is that 'class' is a property of the physical hw, and
> > > > > that the underlying system provides this info. I can see that
> > > > > it could be useful for the client to set this if the system
> > > > > can't do the classification (i.e., the system-set value is
> > > > > 'unknown'). But that's probably not the use case you had in mind?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Bart Bogaert] Assume you have a system with a number of slots
> > > > > that can hold several different cards and the system was
> > > > > deployed in the field with some cards inserted and some other
> > > > > slots that were still left empty. When an operator wants to
> > > > > extend the system we can have
> > > > > 2
> > > > ways of doing this:
> > > > > 1. a field engineer goes 'on-site' and plugs cards in the system.
> > > > > If done this way, the system itself can detect what has been
> > > > > inserted and we do not really need the RW leafs. However in
> > > > > this case an operator has to wait configuring user services on
> > > > > these cards until they are
> > > > inserted.
> > > > > 2. the network operator determines that a node will "run out"
> > > > > of available ports and hence wants to start planning new
> > > > > configuration and hence he wants to configure some boards in
> > > > > the empty slots and even may want to start to pre-configure
> > > > > certain data of the ports contained by these boards. In that
> > > > > case we need the RW leaf to indicate which board type will be
> > > > > inserted as the service that can be offered depends on the
> > > > > board being
> inserted.
> > > > > When the board is inserted, the planned configuration can
> > > > > directly be applied to the newly inserted board (given the
> > > > > fact that the detected class is the same
> > > > as the planned class).
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't this be handled by the support for pre-configuration
> > > > in the interfaces data model? I.e., the general model would be
> > > > that the entity/hardware list is monitoring of the hardware that
> > > > is really present, and other models that need to refer to this
> > > > hardware (like
> > > > interfaces) support pre-configuration.
> > > >
> > > > The interface model lacks an explicit pointer to the
> > > > entity/hardware model; but in many systems this reference is
> > > > implicit in the name of the
> > > interface.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > There are customers using method 1 and other customers use method
2.
> > > > >
> > > > > > - contained-in: for plugable items contained-in
requires
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > mandatory too as a plugable item can't be "floating" in the
> device.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you explain in more detail what this means, and provide
> > > > > some use cases?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Bart Bogaert] For DSL we are faced with "wiring" aspects that
> > > > > "ripple through" to the MDF. So assume we again have a system
> > > > > with plugable
> > > > slots.
> > > > > If we have 2 slots containing the same type of board (same
> > > > > class) and the operator is applying the pre-configuration mode
> > > > > of working (method
> > > > > 2 in above), we have to be sure that user A, connected to the
> > > > > first port of the board plugged in the first slot will really
> > > > > be in
> > slot 1.
> > > > > If the NC client has no means to detect which board is plugged
> > > > > in which slot (they are both of the same class) we need other
> > > > > means to ensure the containment is as intended (and user A
> > > > > being connected to the first port of the board in slot A is
> > > > > also visualized as such on the GUI of the NC client). Using
> > > > > the serial number of the board seems not very practical as
> > > > > board may break and are sent to repair or replaced by another
> > > > > board of the same type but with a different serial number. I
> > > > > do not think operators will like it a lot to manage a system
> > > > > in a manual way based on these attributes hence also a need to
> > > > > plan
> > > > a board in a specific slot.
> > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
