-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:08 PM
To: Balazs Lengyel
Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: netconf notification transport issues
Balazs Lengyel wrote:
Hello,
Someone brought up the scenario that one netconf management system
might supervise many (thousands) nodes. In this case requiring the
manager to have 2 instead of one sessions for each node might be a
problem.
What is the problem actually with multi-use ? (The advantage of having
fewer sessions is clear.) Even if we have multi-use sessions do we
really need multiple channels ? Why ?
It is a complexity tradeoff, not a problem.
I think the WG wants multi-use sessions, but I want to make sure.
The point of multiple channels or connections per session is too
keep notifications and rpcs separate. If they share, they are
serialized.
So let's say your application is dumping the entire config on a huge
router
-- a <get-config> that takes 28 minutes to complete. Let's also say
that a
one of the power supplies on that router freaks out and fries 3
daughter-cards
at once, 30 seconds after this <rpc-reply> starts. That means you have
a major
outage for at least 27.5 minutes before you know about it. Not exactly
how
async notifications are meant to be used.
This is why you really don't want to do RPCs and receive notifications
on the
message path, if you care about fault response time.
Andy
Having a never ending RPC call that sound as a strange use of the RPC
concept for me also someone told me on this list that one RPC call can
only get ONE reply. Is that so ?
regards Balazs
Andy Bierman wrote:
Hi,
Phil brought up some transport issues again, that I think we should
find out some opinions, one way or the other.
1) Multi-use session
Is it important that a manager be able to issue <rpc> calls and
receive <notification> messages within the same session?
The other option (Single-use session) implies that the manager
will establish multiple single purpose sessions instead.
As Phil pointed out, if single-use is okay, then the manager can
simply make a 'start-receiving-notifications' RPC call that
never finishes (usually until the manager shuts down the session).
2) Multiple channels and Multiple Connections
Should we try to bring back this concept?
Wasn't this the main reason we picked BEEP in the first place?
Is the BEEP mapping that relevant without it?
This issue is only relevant if multi-use sessions are required.
3) Application Acks and Reverse RPCs
As Phil and I pointed out in emails, a notification with an
application-ack is really just another <rpc> method, but
from the agent to the manager. It might be simpler to define
how to reverse the flow for notification purposes, rather
than redefining the <rpc> and <rpc-reply> elements.
Should this feature be dropped, capability-based, or mandatory?
If kept, how should it be done?
4) Any More Transport Issues??
Andy
--
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/>
--
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/>
--
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/>