Subject: RE: Why are we doing netconf?

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:26:14 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:06 PM
> To: Netconf (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Why are we doing netconf?
> 
> hi
> 
> Thanks Dave for the well-thought through post.
> 
> I think the 'restriction' on Netconf for configuration has 
> always been an artificial one, but it has served us well. One 
> of the big problems we ran into with SNMP was we kept picking 
> off the easier problem of monitoring and never giving 
> configuration enough focus. By limiting the focusing 
> primarily on configuration for Netconf 1.0, we have ended up 
> with a great technical solution that is seeing some good 
> market uptake.

It also was intended to meet the needs of the operators as they were
scanned by 2001-2002. They told us then that they can leave well with
the alarms and performance monitoring mechanisms in SNMP, but consider
configuration by SNMP a dead horse. 

So maybe the solution that we are looking for is not necessarily one
protocol to fit all sizes, sorry - management functions but a framework
where different protocols meet different functions, maybe even more than
one per function according to costs vs. complexity, linked together by
one access and security model. 

This is a contributor view, in an discussion where all views are allowed
in the hope that they will converge some time in the future. 

Dan

--
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:57:25 +0200

Hi Dan,

> configuration by SNMP a dead horse. 

Actually, for fault management management and alarms some consider SNMP
a dead horse.  Most enterprises in particular prefer SYSLOG and ASCII. 
SPs say they like SNMP but then they use tools like Netcool/CIC, and so
SYSLOG does very well for them as well.  In the end I think we'd find
agreement between the two groups that standardized events should tail
differentiation.

I also think one of the reasons they considered SNMP a dead horse was
lousy integration with their existing AAA.  ISMS may help this.

Eliot