Replace operation

[eduardpo]

Hi Olof,

We are trying to classify two phenomenons that might have impact on our customers:

1. The first RPC returns an error:

<edit-config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" xmlns:nc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> <target> <candidate/> </target> <default-operation>merge</default-operation> <config> <ip xmlns="http://siklu.com/yang/tg/ip"> <ipv4 nc:operation="delete"/> </ip> <ip xmlns="http://siklu.com/yang/tg/ip"> <ipv4> <address> <ip>10.60.137.3</ip> <prefix-length>24</prefix-length> </address> <default-gateway>10.60.137.1</default-gateway> </ipv4> </ip> </config> </edit-config>

Error:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <rpc-reply xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" message-id="51"> <rpc-error> <error-type>protocol</error-type> <error-tag>operation-failed</error-tag> <error-app-tag>too-many-elements</error-app-tag> <error-severity>error</error-severity> <error-path>/rpc/edit-config/config/ip</error-path> </rpc-error> </rpc-reply>

2. The second RPC does not return any error but result is unexpected:

<edit-config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" xmlns:nc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> <target> <candidate/> </target> <default-operation>merge</default-operation> <config> <ip xmlns="http://siklu.com/yang/tg/ip"> <ipv4 nc:operation="delete"/> <ipv4> <address> <ip>10.60.137.3</ip> <prefix-length>24</prefix-length> </address> <default-gateway>10.60.137.1</default-gateway> </ipv4> </ip> </config> </edit-config>

Here is the valid RPC to replace IP settings:

<edit-config xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" xmlns:nc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> <target> <candidate/> </target> <config> <ip xmlns="http://siklu.com/yang/tg/ip"> <ipv4 nc:operation="replace"> <address> <ip>10.60.137.3</ip> <prefix-length>24</prefix-length> </address> <default-gateway>10.60.137.1</default-gateway> </ipv4> </ip> </config> </edit-config>

While it's obviously not a proper way to use consequent delete and merge operations (instead of replace) in the same RPC to update IP settings, still our questions are:

1. Whether the error described in the 1st bullet is correct?

2. The absence of the error described in the second bullet is a normal behavior?

please comment

[olofhagsand]

My reflections:
I assume "ip" is a container and "ipv4" is a list?

<ip><ipv4 nc:operation="delete"/></ip>
<ip><ipv4 nc:operation="merge"/></ip>

I think the above fails becauseI I think ip is a container (is it?) and more than one container is invalid.

   <ip> <ipv4 nc:operation="delete"/><ipv4 nc:operation="merge"/></ip>

I need to understand what YANG ipv4 is? If it is a list, the delete operation is kind of strange. What happens in this case: is a list instance deleted, all instances deleted, or none deleted?

[eduardpo]

My reflections: I assume "ip" is a container and "ipv4" is a list?

<ip><ipv4 nc:operation="delete"/></ip>
<ip><ipv4 nc:operation="merge"/></ip>

I think the above fails becauseI I think ip is a container (is it?) and more than one container is invalid.

   <ip> <ipv4 nc:operation="delete"/><ipv4 nc:operation="merge"/></ip>

I need to understand what YANG ipv4 is? If it is a list, the delete operation is kind of strange. What happens in this case: is a list instance deleted, all instances deleted, or none deleted?

container ip {
	...
	container ipv4 {
		...
	}
}

Do you mean the above usage is invalid?
Thanks.

[olofhagsand]

No, I just assumed it was a list. The expected behavior is different.
Will look at it again with the new info

[olofhagsand]

I have looked at it again now.
After fixing some related problems, such as: 2eb9c6c the behavior has changed so that both the first and second edit-config cases return the same too-many-elements error status.
Please verify.