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

Re: snmpconf General Functional Questions



Jon:

As you say, the dirty bit that we talked about previously is functionally
equivelant to locking the priority of manual configuration at the highest
level. 

As to whether allowing this priority level to change is complicated or not
really depends on how we deal with conflicting policies.  In my mind
however, there will always be the "manual configuration/firefighting"
policy which may conflict with other policies on the device.

For this reason, I think it might be worthwhile to decide how we're going
to deal with conflicting policies.  How to deal with manual configuration
may fall out of how we deal with conflicting policies.  At the very least,
we may get some ideas from that discussion.


-Matt

Matt White
Ericsson IP Infrastructure

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Jon Saperia wrote:

> on 07/06/2000 11:26 AM, Matt White at mwhite@torrentnet.com wrote:
> 
> > By "the precedence issue", I am referring to conflict resolution.  You
> > mentioned above the idea of associating a priority with a policy, which
> > IMHO is the right thing to do.  If we do go that route, we can look at
> > manual configuration on a box as an implicit policy, the "manual policy"
> > if you will.  The user can then assign whatever priority they want to
> > manual policy.  This provides the flexibility to say "policy foo and bar
> > do not override manual configuration, but policy baz takes precendence
> > always".
> 
> Matt this is an interesting idea but seems a bit complicated to me. I think
> in effect what I and others have said is that a manual change always is
> highest priority and overrides other parameters - perhaps a simpler version
> of what you suggest.
> 
> /jon
>