Re: [Netconf] Does <discard-changes> do the same thing as <copy-config>-ing 'running' to 'candidate'?

[Ariel Otilibili Anieli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Attila,

Comments below.

Regards,
Ariel

Quoting Attila Vangel <[e-mail]>:

> Hi,
>
> N00b question on netconf. Could somebody please clarify?
>
> 1. Does <discard-changes> (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241#section-8.3.4.2) have totally the same
> effect as <copy-config>-ing 'running' to 'candidate'?
No.
>
> "This operation discards any uncommitted changes by resetting the
>    candidate configuration with the content of the running
>    configuration."
>
> If so, was it introduced as a shorter alternative of copying?
> If not, what is the difference between them?
<copy-config> copies the content of a datastore to another, whatever  
it is; <discard-changes> discards the changes made on the 'candidate'  
datastore.
>
> 2. I got confused because I watched a tutorial on youtube which used both
> commands, first <discard-changes> before locking any config datastores, and
> <copy-config>-ing 'running' to 'candidate' after locking these datastores.
> (The assumption in this example is that the device supports 'candidate'.)
I suppose they wanted to edit 'candidate' from 'running', that's why  
they <copy-config> before edition.
>
> 3. For the first time I was puzzled why to do <discard-changes> before
> doing any locking, but then I read in the RFC that lock would fail if
> 'candidate' was "dirty" (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241#section-7.5):
>
> A lock MUST NOT be granted if any of the following conditions is
>       true:
>
>       *  A lock is already held by any NETCONF session or another
>          entity.
>
>       *  The target configuration is <candidate>, it has already been
>          modified, and these changes have not been committed or rolled
>          back.
>
>       <...>
>
Another thing on <lock>
> But still I am not sure about 1. If these commands do the same thing, using
> <copy-config> in this tutorial was just for showcasing doing it yet another
> way in 2.?
>
> (I was not sure whether to share the link for the tutorial, maybe it
> would look like as advertising the company/author who did the
> tutorial.)
>
> Best regards,
> Attila
>



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr