FW: FW: FW: RFC3535 question/clarification

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

FYI

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com]
Sent: maandag 15 september 2003 19:26
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: lear@cisco.com; nm-ws@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: FW: FW: RFC3535 question/clarification



On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 11:35 America/Montreal, Juergen 
Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Item 3. in the section on "Operator Requirements" of RFC 3535 says:
>
> :   3.  It is required to be able to fetch separately configuration 
> data,
> :       operational state data, and statistics from devices, and to be
> :       able to compare these between devices.
>
> And I recall discussions about "why it is painful to compare the real
> configs" from the operators who attended the workshop. And my naive
> assumption was that a device knows internally what got configured
> manually and what not. But perhaps I was wrong...

In the mid-90s at least, cisco IOS (on the routers) absolutely
did know internally which was configured manually and which was
learned (e.g. via BGP, OSPF).  I haven't seen source code since
then, perhaps someone broke that capability.  Extreme's products
do know internally which was configured and which was learned.
I'm told by other vendors that most (all ?) products do know
internally what was configured and what was learned.

I don't think it is legitimate for Eliot to insist on revisiting
the validity of the points on the IAB NM Workshop report, so
I simply will not get drawn into an argument about whether those
reported conclusions are valid.  One might argue that other
end-users/operators have different priorities or additional needs,
but trying to re-open the question of the workshop report's
validity is not appropriate.

Ran


--
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/>