RE: netconf WG charter proposal

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 05:32 AM 4/5/2003 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
>> There are alternatives to these features today -- the NMS
>> application has to provide rollback or check for multiple
>> config-writers.  I agree a device is more manageable if
>> these are embedded features.  I would prefer to see multiple
>> conformance levels rather than one bar, set way too high.
>
>can an 'external' system can not provide a transaction model if the
>devices do not have the primitive mechanisms needed to implement
>it?

locking: no. 
An NMS can (at best) detect that additional config changes have 
occurred, examine those changes, and determine if conflicts
exist.  (The source code control model)

rollback: maybe
An NMS can retrieve the device config at any time, and save it
before applying new config. If the new config does not create
the desired network state, the NMS can re-apply the old config.
This may or may not require service disruption, depending on
the device and specific config changes applied.   If the new
config causes the device to crash, then devices which have
a distinct startup config will revert to the last saved config
upon reboot.  If the new config causes the device to wedge,
then OOB management via the console port is required.

Note that embedded rollback only makes things easier on the
NMS in the first case, not the other two cases.

I don't care that much about the conformance details right
now. Perhaps WG consensus will turn out to be that this is 
a mandatory feature that all devices must support.  I think
we should focus on the technical details first and worry
about conformance details towards the end of the process.


>randy

Andy


--
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/>