[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: snmpconf Conflict Resolution Issues



on 06/22/2000 1:51 PM, David Harrington at dbh@enterasys.com wrote:

>> 
>> Conflict Resolution Issues:
>> 
>> 1. How do we deal with intentional and unintended conflicts.
>> 
>> It is hard to tell between intentional and unintended conflicts between
>> policies. 
> 
> Agreed. I don't think it is significant for us to differentiate these.
> 
>> My suggestion is that this function be left to the policy
>> application function and not the managed element software.
> 
> When you say "this function", do you mean the differentiation of intended vs.
> unintended, or the resolution of conflicts?
>
I mean the determination between intentional and unintended conflict. In the
case of 'intended' the mechanism you desire in your comment below might be
found in policy group and priority. An intended conflict is one where policy
A sets a value of a particular MIB Object to X and policy B wants it to be
B. Intended in this case means that both policies were 'provisioned' this
way as might be the case of policies that deal with link failures etc. We
have yet to discuss priorities and groups on the list. Specific proposals
from people would be welcome. Anything beyond this should in my view be left
with the application.
>> 
>> 2. Is conflict detection or resolution a goal?
>> 
>> Both are hard. Unless someone has a specific proposal, I suggest that we
>> omit this capability or recommend that it be left to the ingenuity of the
>> equipment or manager software developers.
> 
> I think it needs to be a goal to detect conflict and we should decide
> how it should be handled.
> Conflict may result from situational factors. Trying to write conditions
> to consider every possible factor would make rules difficult to
> understand.
> 
> If we leave resolution to the administrator, we need to provide a
> mechanism for the administrator to tell the policy application function
> that "here is how I want this conflict handled" without forcing the
> administrator to go rewrite the policies involved right then and there,
> and to ensure that the conflict is re-reported on the next evaluation.

I believe this is part of the application that I suggested above.
> 
> The same conflict may arise multiple times. We should allow the
> administrator to define a "policy" to indicate how to resolve such
> conflicts in the future. This may be able to be done using a MIB to
> drive the conflict resolution (rule 4 overrides rule 3 when conflicts
> arise).
> 
See my comment above about priority and groups (work still needs to be done
on this).  Hongal was working on this. Hongal do you have a proposal?

/jon