Re: A few potential requirements

[john heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>]

Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 05:46:49PM -0400, Jon Saperia:
> > Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 05:02:07PM -0400, Jon Saperia:
> > > 
> > > This is getting to the point I am attempting to understand. Being
> > > able to diff configs and config changes is clearly important. I
> > > do not see how the method of how the configuration changes or the
> > > entire configuration 'data set' got to the box matter. You want
> > > to be able to verify what was sent - to see what is there in
> > > whole or part.
> > 
> > the bits on the wire matter if one is trying write libs/whatever to
> > handle it; assuming there are no libraries, no free libs, or no
> > satisfactorily functioning libs.  i also need to have the supporting
> > "applications" on my mgmt box; which doesnt have uucp-over-tcp.
> > 
> > i think everyone agrees that we dont want bits hidden or out of reach.
> > one of the advantages that makes unix paramount (besides the lack of
> > the daily reboot feature); let me do what i want, even if that results
> > in decapitation.
> > 
> > i dont understand why you want any bits to be hidden/off limits.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I am not arguing for anthing to be off limits. Do you actually debug on
> the wire? You debug on the machine that generated the file and on the

that's entirely dependant upon what you are debugging.  a config, how
it gets from mgmt box to router, or ...

> router. The difference in the unix model is that it is a one file/system
> at a time approach and the model does not lend itself well to the types
> of expansion in size and complexity some folks have raised.
> 
> Thanks,
> /jon
> --
> 
> Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
> 			     Phone: 617-744-1079
> 			     Fax:   617-249-0874
> 			     http://www.jdscons.com/