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

[Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>]

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> 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
>  
The problem is the same.  It does not accommodate SOHO management.

> --
> 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/>
>  
--
Larry Menten               Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories
Phone: 908 582-4467        600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ  07974 USA 


--
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/>