Re: [i2rs] Question on opstate/ephemeral update

Joe:

I've updated the examples in the yang document.  Here's my understanding
with priorities (see ephemeral state requirements) with highest priority
winning. 

Set 
Intended configuration priority = 2
Dhcp configuration priority = 1
Ephemeral state = 3 

Dhcp - would never update things, and I2RS would win over intended
configuration. 

Set 
Intended configuration priority = 1
Dhcp configuration priority = 2
Ephemeral state = 3

Dhcp takes precedence (wins) over intended configuration - so dhcp received
configurations are installed.  Ephemeral state wins over dhcp values. 

Does this make sense?    

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 1:56 AM
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: [i2rs] Question on opstate/ephemeral update

Given the tight timing of the meeting, I don't want to derail things. 
If we have time, I'll raise this at the mic.

But I do have a question on slide 2 of
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-i2rs-i2rs-opstate-and-e
phemeral-00.pdf
.  I see DHCP along side the [I2RS] control plane DSes.  I understand that
the I2RS agent will handle the resolution of multiple client writes using
priorities.

But how does that play with DHCP or local config?  In our ephemeral
requirements draft we say that local config (<intended> in this drawing)
would have a priority.  And that in the <applied> state the device would
have to resolve the local priorities with the "winning" config from the I2RS
agent.  But then DHCP writes a route.  How will that be handled?

I would like some clarity with respect to our priority requirements in the
ephemeral state draft.

Joe

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs