[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Size matters was Re: notification charter proposal
I agree w/what you're saying and I wasn't suggesting setting max.
message sizes. Also, just talking about notifications.
Hector
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:22 AM
Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Size matters was Re: notification charter proposal
Please dont set a max message size generally for netconf !!!
For me one attractive usage of netconf would be to retrieve the complete
configuration of a node. If we set a mandatory max-size for all netconf
messages (as opposed to setting it
for notifications only) this usage would become impossible. For big
nodes it is anyone's guess what the size of a full configuration can be.
We have nodes that contain the data of 10 million subscribers.
Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
Hector Trevino (htrevino) wrote:
>
> I agree that this is part of the protocol definition but I see it as
> outside the scope of the charter definition. I'd assume none of this
> will be included in the charter.
>
>
> I don't think the spec should set a hard limit on the max message
size.
> I agree w/Juergen about not limiting the protocol but rather allowing
> implementations to advertise their max message sizes (if one is set).
> It may be better to say something like app layer message segmentation
> is not allowed. But recommendations/guidelines for max message sizes
> should be provided in the spec.
>
> Hector
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:01 PM
> To: Tom Petch
> Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Size matters was Re: notification charter proposal
>
> Tom Petch wrote:
>
>
>><inline>
>>Tom Petch
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
>>To: <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
>>Cc: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>; <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:41 PM
>>Subject: Re: notification charter proposal <snip>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>>That would be fine with me.
>>>I brought up the issue because the problem is obviously worse for
>>>notifications than RPCs, because the lack of an application layer ACK
>>>(which <rpc-reply> effectively is).
>>>
>>>The reason for setting a minimum is to allow NMS developers to code
>>>to
>
>
>>>some reasonable minimum. The market will help keep things somewhat
>>>reasonable, but we could see a range from 1500 to 64K as the minimum.
>
>
>>>Is that OK?
>>>
>>>Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I raised size because there are references appearing on the list
>>calling for something syslog-like and size has been an issue with
>>syslog that has not been satisfactorily resolved. syslog unearthed
>>two
>
>
>>contrasting viewpoints, one that messages should not exceed 2k or even
>>1k, the other that 64k should be supported (for at least one
>
> application).
>
>>Netconf is more virgin territory than syslog is but I do believe is
>>setting a Maximum size, at least to start with; but I do not see this
>>as anything to do with the charter:-).
>>
>>
>
>
> This is part of protocol syntax and semantics.
>
> IMO, the best approach is to have the NC peer advertise its
> max-message-size. The number should be an PositiveInteger, so that
> would set a theoretical max-message-size of 4G-1 bytes.
>
>
> A separate issue is whether there is a minimum an NC peer can set this
> parameter to, somewhat higher than zero. I don't see any consensus
> yet on how much higher to set the minimum.
>
>
> Another important issue: Can an NC peer (optionally?) send its
> max-message-size in the <hello> exchange? This doesn't mean the other
> NC peer has to do anything with the value, it just provides a good
> guess at the number instead of trying
> various message sizes to see what breaks. Advertising a
> max-message-size doesn't mean you won't get messages greater than that
> size.
>
>
>
>>Tom Petch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 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/>
--
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/>