[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf General Functional Questions - Policy Groups andPriority
on 07/07/2000 12:57 PM, Matt White at email@example.com wrote:
> 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.
Note I changed the title a bit here since I wanted to start a new thread.
Matt, I believe we did and even had consensus on the list on June 24th. Even
Bert weighed in :-) The short answer is that the heavy lifting is done by
the manger. Local conflict resolution has always been done to some degree.
I gave the example of agents checking resources etc. Beyond that the policy
system inside a managed element does not do any conflict resolution and
detection. See my 7/3 posting.
All of this said, I am pretty convinced that there is significant value in
adding a policy group and policy priority object to the policy table.
Specifically group/priority is a way of connecting/prioritizing or doing
conflict resolution external to the device. If there are 10 policies on a
device and three related groups of policies, then I would say that there
would be three policy groups. I would also say that the policy groups should
be centrally named so that there is consistency across systems.
The policy priority should also be organized globally recognizing that local
optimizations may be needed.