Re: manager subscription model for notifications: usage survey

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

David B Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Enterasys, which focused on enterprise networks, we had a customer
> managing an 88000 node network with our snmp application. The size of
> managed networks is growing rapidly, so let's not constrain the
> network size too much (but let's not go add lots of features only
> useful in huge networks either).

Not sure what this comment means, other than the current
manager-subscribe proposal scales even worse than I claimed.
So let's target 100000 devices, not 10000.  So imagine
one or more managers starting 100000 sessions, and issuing
100000 RPCs, just to get notifications restarted after manager
connectivity is lost.

Seems to me that session-based notifications are really expensive,
and don't scale well, even if the agent initiates the session.
Maybe that's why syslog and SNMP don't use sessions.  Hmmm...
At best, this netconf notification feature is a way to receive copies
of notifications in a session, while connected for operations.
Not sure why that is important, but it is not related to,
and not going to replace, syslog/SNMP notifications.


> Understand that some of the devices being managed were fairly simple
> things like vending machines, not complex things like routers, but it
> will be a good thing if devices other than routers can be used with
> netconf.

agreed.
The KISS Factor (keep it simple stupid) applies here.
Is this thing we are building an embedded agent or a mid-level manager?
It looks like the latter to me.

> dbh

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/>