At 4:37 PM -0700 4/11/05, Aaron Glenn wrote:
>On Apr 11, 2005 4:30 PM, Brent Chapman <Brent@greatcircle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, this is important; it's got to be extendable, because you aren't
>> going to think of everything up front.
>>
>
>Can one model a network in such a way ontop of SQL, or is there a
>better (easier/more extensible/effecient) way?
I don't know. It would seem to me that being _able_ to represent
your network model in SQL is a worthwhile goal, but I'm not sure if
the constraints imposed by SQL would force too many compromises in
the model.
I'd be tempted to model the data structures and relationships in the
abstract, and then figure out how to represent those in SQL (or any
other tool, including plain text).
-Brent
--
Brent Chapman <brent@greatcircle.com> -- Great Circle Associates, Inc.
Specializing in network infrastructure for Silicon Valley since 1989
For info about us and our services, please see http://www.greatcircle.com/
Network Automation blog: http://www.greatcircle.com/blog/network_automation
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
