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

Re: snmpconf General Functional Questions

I'm not suggesting that the field engineer be prevented from making
changes. In fact, I was the original proposer for an override
capability as well as operational/debugging tools for field 
engineers - they are all in the draft today.

All I want is for the field engineer to have to do something special
to override a policy. Shouldn't he at least know that he has done
something significant? Wouldn't it be good if he was thus encouraged
to think twice? Wouldn't it be good if he was encouraged to mention it
to the network architect? ("hey, I needed to disable the blah policy
on trunk 7 last night because it was interacting poorly with the
backup circuit").

My proposal is that he issue 2 commands rather than one. The first
disables the policy on the interface and the second is a normal 
SNMP set that makes the change.


"Joel M. Halpern" wrote:
> I had overlooked that (background change detection) proposal.  That would
> indeed produce the results you propose.  And was not what I was
> expecting.  I had assumed that one would indeed modify some internal
> mechanisms so taht if a change was being made to a variable which had been
> modified by policy, that the "don't touch" flag would get set.
> I would observe that even if that were the case, one would still have
> policy effect on new things, and policy effect when collatoral conditionals
> were changed.
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> Also, to respond to the note expressing concern about the interaction
> between the Network Architect and the Field Engineer, if the systems folks
> have decided that the field engineer should not be able to change certain
> things, don't given that engineer permission to change them.  In my
> discussions with ISPs they have confirmed that it is normal and desirable
> for field engineers to change things, and that preventing them from doing
> so would be a bad thing.
> At 11:43 AM 7/6/00 -0700, Steve Waldbusser <waldbusser@nextbeacon.com> wrote:
> >But early in this discussion it was proposed that the way the policy engine
> >learns that a variable has been modified is by comparing with the policy
> >value and when it notices that it is different, marking it as "don't
> >touch".