Re: Comments Question about draft-xu-cops-push-00.txt

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:19:18PM +0800, xuheyuan wrote:

> At that time the Re reference point, merged into Rw reference point
> later, controlled the IP edge, actually an IP-IP gateway. In the
> current network, most existing IP-IP gateways are routers, which
> support COPS already. In reality, using COPS is the quickest way to
> do that as described in approach 2 in this draft.

I have routers that support NETCONF in my lab and no routers
supporting COPS-PR or COPS.  Perhaps this is why our views of the
world are somewhat different.

> COPS-PR by nature does policy control, Rw interface mainly does
> policy control dynamically, not just push configuration
> information. Besides, in 2005,NETCONF was a pretty new protocol, and
> few existing routers supported NETCONF.

I never understood the distinction between configuration and policy
information when it comes to the device interface. The PDP is the
policy engine and what comes out of this engine as provisioning
information is for me not really distinct from configuration data
coming out of other systems (e.g. customer provisioning systems).

I agree that NETCONF was pretty new in 2005 and it still is in 2007.
COPS-PR is older but as far as I can tell not too widely implemented
and the number of people within the IETF who do understand COPS-PR
well is like to be somewhat smaller than the number of people within
the IETF who understand NETCONF and my impression was that COPS-PR
awareness declines.

> As RACF supports both fix and mobile, push and pull modes, in the
> real networking, PD-FE may possibly support both modes, and in pull
> modes, COPS is very effective, so, in push mode, if approach 2 COPS
> could be adopted, it will simplify the implementation.

The implementation simplification is a relative thing (if you have
COPS, using COPS is simple, if you have NETCONF, using NETCONF is
simple). Not sure how to make a decision on this.

Again, I like to see the discussion raised to the technical level to
first understand if NETCONF could do what you need it to do equally
well or whether there is any technical feature that really
distinguishes COPS-PR from NETCONF.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		 Jacobs University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area