RE: netconf and working "on the box"

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> When the in-band is lost a lot of time the box becomes totally
> un-manageable and thus requires a trunk roll.  A trunk roll is very
> expensive and the following requirements are observed:
> 
> 1. The protocol may have to take redundant or secondary path to the
> network element into consideration so that when the primary route to the
> NE is lost, the secondary kicks in.  OOB interface typically doesn't
> have this requirement.
> 
> 2. It is absolutely required to have the network element to be able to
> recover the in-band management channel when it is the only means that
> this NE can be managed.  This translates to some small set of
> configuration is required (such as IP address and route to the agent on
> NE) to keep the box manageable and they may require different security
> level. Sometimes this also requires pre-provisioning or OOB only
> provisioning.  Also the requirement of notification on this small set of
> configuration parameter.  

we all know this stuff.  except in the internet we don't have
"trunk roll."  what is it folk just don't get about the path to the
box not a priori changing the syntax or semantics?

randy


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>