On Apr 11, 2005 4:24 PM, Daniel Hagerty <hag@linnaean.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure how tall we'll have to climb to really produce
> satisfactory reasoning with the problem of "this" yet.
And that's the heart of it. Routing protocols suggest a common "this"
(the IGP configuration), and the mixing of syntax and semantics got me
re-reading "godel, escher, bach".
> The IGP example, the destroy the ip address of the interface, and many
> other complex "godel" looking problems in configuration come down to
> the presence of an implied "this" concept. For simple things like
> "this router", it's can be easy enough to express. Other things are
> probably less so.
Our approach is inherently "network" specific (i mean, "my network"
versus "your network"), because the semantics of this network are tied
up in the syntax of our language of abstraction. When you solve the
problem, some of the lessons learned may be useful for me, but some
will undoubtedly be overly simplistic or not complex enough to avoid
unwanted looping or halting states.
Beauty in the world is such a difficult thing when you just want to
automate your network!
-andrew
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
