> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 6:04 PM > To: Hunter Fuller <hf0...@uah.edu> > > That's what I'm asking about. > > While the thread Mark referenced, deals (in my humble opinion) primarily > with automation side of things, my question is how the whole SDN thing > became vendor-specific-closed-protocol? > > I'm not talking specifically about any particular facet of SDN, such as > automation or forwarding plane control over the network (though l > personally most interested in the latter, at least for now) or anything else - > rather, how 100% of solutions I've been presented over past year or so, are > all closed code-proprietary protocol solutions? > > Not a single one was based on an open standard, such as Open Flow, not a > single one is able to interoperate with others, though one particular SDN > solution will cost *a third *same vendor "traditional" standard compliant > equipment. That's for me, was begging the question - am I missing > something here and I'm really be better off by selling my soul to a single > vendor for eternity, rather than opting for standard compliant box? If there's > such one to begin with? > The standardization is coming, check out https://www.mef.net/mef-3-0-sd-wan
Though the only thing that can be meaningfully standardized really are "some" mechanisms/protocols used to disseminate "some" decisions. -but that should be enough for basic inerop between vendors. How the controller comes to a decision is each vendors secret sauce (and as you might have guessed, there always will be some decisions that need to communicated using novel/custom mechanisms -hence my use of "some") . adam _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
