RE: 'config' vs. 'policy'

I think we agree that more-flexible template-based configuration
for appropriate sets of network devices (not just one at a time)
is a good thing. I suspect that this particular good thing is
included in the goals of many of the people pursuing Policy-Based
Network Management.

You might have drawn the distinction between the rules that set
configuration parameters based on policy (on the time-scale of when 
policy changes) and rule-based execution of the policy engine in
the process of forwarding an individual packet more clearly than
we have. There was a distinction (not captured in the evolution)
between packet-level rules and those that could be translated into
relatively static configuration (such as time of day) by Silvano
Gai in early discussions.

I am not sure how much of an inference engine (to apply the rules)
people would be comfortable standardizing for operation per packet.

These are just my thoughts, as requested. Other perspectives probably
differ.

John

At 02:32 PM 6/13/2002, Michael Carr wrote:

>Most of the discussions I've followed, and web literature I've read
>regarding PBNM really falls into what could also be called
>template-based network management.  I.e., more of a convenience-driven
>technology or framework, to make it easier for a manager to setup a
>large network of disparate devices.  When I think of networking policy,
>I think more along the lines of a technology for
>programmable/configurable wire-speed decision making.
>
>Shoehorning interface_MTU into a policy statement just because it works
>and fits a configuration framework has performance impacting
>side-effects.  If the underlying policy engine stores policies in an
>embedded database, that database is burdened with elements it could
>other wise jettison and achieve faster lookups, insertions, conflict
>detection and resolution, etc.
>
>Thoughts?