Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs. ephemeral)

Joe: 

We discussed  "treating "local config" (e.g., CLI changes) as an I2RS client
with its own I2RS priority" in order so that priority concept can resolve
conflict.  REQ-07 is a bit broader because we tagged this to the two "Knobs"
that section 6.3.1 described.  (see below) in the IETF architecture
document.   If you think the priority concept can provide the support for
the two switches and use case below, could you describe it on the list. 

Your point is the last remaining point. 

Sue 
===============================

Section 6.3.1
=============
   The policy settings in the architecture is: 

Knob 1: Ephemeral configuration overwrites Local Configuration.
Knob 2: Update of Local Configuration value supersedes and
      overwrites the ephemeral configuration.

                           Existence                              Updates
                          Policy Knob 1                       Policy Knob 2
Situation 
                       ===================     ==================
   Router A     ephemeral has                     ephemeral  has
Ephemeral  is active 
                         priority                                 priority .

   Router B    Local Configuration            Local Configuration
Ephemeral is recorded in Agent,  
                       has priority                           has priority
but not used.  Can be turned on by 

turning knob 1 to "ephemeral has priority". 

   Router C    ephemeral has priority      Local Configuration
Nightly configuration overwrite 

Ephemeral.          

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 10:08 AM
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs. ephemeral)

As I stated at the mic today, I think the way REQ-07 is written is a bit
broad.  This was evidently the intent, but I have a proposal.

Can we not treat "local config" (e.g., CLI changes) as an I2RS client with
its own I2RS priority?  If all players (I2RS and local config) play with the
same priority concept, then one can easily control what gets precedence.

For example, if I want to temporarily overlay ephemeral-provided changes
with local config, I could increase the local config priority.  When I'm
done with that, I set the priority back.  By default, the local config
priority would be the lowest value to allow for ephemeral changes to take
precedence.

I do not think this will have a negative impact on topology as I have read
it, but if this doesn't make sense in some use cases, the priority could be
ignored.

Hopefully I've described this well so that it makes sense.

Joe

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