Subject: use of netconf to configure Unix systems

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:39:42 -0800

Hi -

I'm intrigued by the concern that netconf should be assigned a Unix privileged port.
Does this mean that someone has or is developing a netconf data model to configure
Unix hosts or applications?  Are there other reasons for running a netconf server
on a Unix host?

Randy

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:43:31 -0800

Certainly NETCONF has been implemented on devices that run UNIX, and I'm
sure we can expect more of that.

Eliot

---

From: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:09:51 +0100

> I'm intrigued by the concern that netconf should be assigned a Unix

The IANA terminology is "well known port number", and a comment in the
IANA port-numbers file says they "... on most systems can only be used
by system (or root) processes or by programs executed by privileged
users." So I wouldn't be too fixated on Unix - although I'm not
familiar with how non-Unix systems actually handle this.  Whatever.

> Does this mean that someone has or is developing a netconf data
> model to configure Unix hosts or applications?

Not in their entirety, as far as I know, but YencaP is an example of a
NETCONF server implementation that runs on Unix hosts and provides
configuration access to some applications, in particular Zebra's BGP
daemon.

Note also that not all Unix-based systems are hosts in the classical
sense, many routers and other appliances are also based on Unix
(Juniper's are just one example).

> Are there other reasons for running a netconf server on a Unix host?

I can think of plenty.  I guess many vendors of Unix-based appliances
want to hide the traditional Unix way of configuring things
(a maze of twisty config files under /etc, all in different formats).
-- 
Simon.

---

From: Bobby Krupczak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:25:30 -0500

Hi!

> model to configure Unix hosts or applications?  Are there other
> reasons for running a netconf server on a Unix host?

I have been following netconf with the idea of borrowing much of it
for management/monitoring/configuring of operating-systems and
applications.  [I was originally drawn to netconf because of the
potential for event propagation.]

It dont think it needs to have a privileged port for either platforms
(e.g. windows or unix) to play that roll since (hopefully)
non-administrator/non-root users should not be able to change
configuration without the apporopriate underlying permissions.

Also, is the privileged port space becoming scarce?

Bobby

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:54:59 -0800

> Unix hosts or applications?  Are there other reasons for running a netconf server

Perhaps somebody is already implementing a "NETCONF to Unix Config file" 
gateway,
running on Fedora4.  Netconf for unix is a very real possibility.

> Randy

Andy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:45:44 +0100

On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:39:42PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
 
> I'm intrigued by the concern that netconf should be assigned a Unix
> privileged port.  Does this mean that someone has or is developing a
> netconf data model to configure Unix hosts or applications?  Are
> there other reasons for running a netconf server on a Unix host?

Unix is increasingly used on embedded devices and this is where I can
see a need to deploy netconf. Host systems may follow, but I doubt
deployment will start from that type of systems since host systems
already allow me to put whatever I want there to solve my
configuration problem (e.g. cfengine or other systems).

/js

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

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:10:34 -0800

> configuration problem (e.g. cfengine or other systems).

I agree with you mostly.

In my email that started this discussion, I really meant network services
that happen to be running on a linux box instead of a traditional NE box.
I never meant user applications.  I certainly never meant Windows.

If I am using a CM system for the NE boxes that manages a particular
service, then I would rather have it support the occasional linux box
as well, rather than use an entirely separate CM system for that platform.

Andy