Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Larry Menten" <lmenten@lucent.com>
> To: "netconf" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 1:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
...
> To my mind, it would be a shame to force configuration to take place
> through an
> element manager that hosts a complete master copy of the config.  That
> doesn't
> work for small device management where the master copy is considered to
> be the
> copy in the device.  It also makes management fragile in environments
> where the
> cli will occasionally be used to modify the device configuration.
>
> In my opinion, the protocol should accommodate both models well.  The
> overlay/merge/replace document operation model does not.
...

Just to be clear: distinguishing the "definitive" configuration from that of
the device (or network) does *not* require hosting it on an element
manager.  It could be somewhere else entirely, and all the element
manager would do would be to tell the device to update itself, perhaps
by sending it the configuration's URL.

Randy



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