Re: [i2rs] Question on opstate/ephemeral update

On 11/16/16 16:10, Susan Hares wrote:
> 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?

This makes sense (as does Joel's description).  In particular, what Joel 
says, "assigning Intended Conifg and the specific other cynamic control 
protocols priorities in the same space we are using for deciding between 
I2RS clients in the case of conflict [sic]."

My comments were simply to state that in your presentation, the slides 
didn't indicate how priority would work.  Kent came to the mic to say 
that priority resolution would be worked out outside of the <applied> DS 
(indicating to me that the I2RS agent would take the "winning" change 
from two competing clients into <applied>).

I want to make sure we can have the same priority space applied to all 
DS actors.

Joe

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