Re: [i2rs] Question on opstate/ephemeral update

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Fri, 18 November 2016 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B683E1299E6 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:15:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oD4C-irYDpTL for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1EFE128E18 for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:15:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2852; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1479435301; x=1480644901; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5pILVZoisBBXrmFAZ69sAhSSeQngxzhxpp0R6VEe7/k=; b=mvujxTy7eHdD6Qk4LZXb5z3VYFeB5sHo+kyhUCgeiLVJr6ODWfaTrhQ6 uLFMYQsuOSyg55Yb43KSWRn4Az7+Pbgo0/lk3AtOj9yLhV+NI6ejOoaWk RcZBf82OOjYagRzoOb5MNcinqkcWDX5ra9OzWGwLCQKIdcwO9cS9BCaua o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CcAQAeYy5Y/4sNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgzcBAQEBAR9YLFSNP5cQlGSCBx0NhXcCgh8/FAECAQEBAQEBAWI?= =?us-ascii?q?ohGgBAQEDAQEBATU2FwQLDgMEAQEBJwcnHwkIBgEMBgIBARqIRggOrlqLVwEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFhjyBfYJdhBqGEAWPXYpmkG2BcIgShiSHQ4Y?= =?us-ascii?q?NhAseN4ELHYU8IDSHeQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,655,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="348053607"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Nov 2016 02:15:01 +0000
Received: from [10.24.56.116] ([10.24.56.116]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uAI2Ex1I019204; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 02:15:00 GMT
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, i2rs@ietf.org
References: <8419df8b-4861-edb7-0a66-c2c123148727@cisco.com> <015201d2404d$ef173260$cd459720$@ndzh.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Message-ID: <1b773ec3-ca1e-6ec0-5a86-1b6bb9eb5fde@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 21:14:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <015201d2404d$ef173260$cd459720$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/YpqPu0clCVtVg63wIk3DDet8Rso>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Question on opstate/ephemeral update
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 02:15:03 -0000

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
>