search

dhcwg / yang

A workplace for IETF drafts related to DHC WG and YANG
1 stars 1 forks source link

Use of global options #15

Closed zihaohe123 closed 6 years ago

zihaohe123 commented 6 years ago

Currently in the server model, options are defined in network-range/pool/host level. However, global options should be used if clients connected to most subnets are expected to get the same values of a given option. Otherwise, it might incur repeated implementations of one option for administrators.

bevolz commented 6 years ago

Yes, a global option set should be provided. This can be useful for smaller configurations (i.e., perhaps here is only one set of DNS servers for all clients).

From: Zihao He [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 3:41 AM To: dhcwg/yang yang@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: [dhcwg/yang] Use of global options (#15)

Currently in the server model, options are defined in network-range/pool/host level. However, global options should be used if clients connected to most subnets are expected to get the same values of a given option. Otherwise, it might incur repeated implementations of one option for administrators.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/dhcwg/yang/issues/15, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABm3YSDbB9_He_4FSxRYLfuzRabnGznvks5tPYQvgaJpZM4RwPE7.

zihaohe123 commented 6 years ago

Alright. Now 'dns-server' is under 'network-ranges' and this option is removed from 'option-set'.

bevolz commented 6 years ago

I think that’s a bad idea. Why do that?

Network-ranges or pools should be allowed to have an option-set where dns-server can be one of the options, but you should allow dns-server to be in any option-set.

For example, why could I not have one dns-server option for my entire (global) configuration if I have a “smaller” organization that only has a single set of DNS servers.

I can’t see why one would tie dns-servers to only network-ranges.

From: Zihao He [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 6:27 AM To: dhcwg/yang yang@noreply.github.com Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) volz@cisco.com; Comment comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [dhcwg/yang] Use of global options (#15)

Alright. Now 'dns-server' is under 'network-ranges' and this option is removed from 'option-set'.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/dhcwg/yang/issues/15#issuecomment-361565028, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABm3YdRf1JSTSUxs1WRFjDss7qy6PfD4ks5tPvyggaJpZM4RwPE7.

zihaohe123 commented 6 years ago

I see your point here. Maybe it is really a bad idea. I think we should move 'dns-servers-option' back to 'option-set', and add an 'option-set-id' leaf under 'network-ranges' used as global options.