> Sure, my point was that you won’t need a “NMS per vendor” I don't know any network which would use "NMS per vendor" today. In fact the entire reason to develop your own NMS is to have your own interface to the network provisioning to be vendor agnostic.
Best, R. On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:29 PM Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > Sure, my point was that you won’t need a “NMS per vendor” and hence a need > to agree on control plane protocol (PCEP). Abusing control plane for > configuration… been there :) > Specifically to PCEP point - PCEP creates ephemeral state, (not persistent > across reboots), and hence rather unsuitable for configuration. > > Cheers, > Jeff > On Jul 24, 2019, 4:21 PM -0400, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>, wrote: > > Jeff, > > > I think (sincerely hope) you are wrong, there’s a reason we have spent > last 7 or so years working on YANG. > > Even if in the perfect universe all devices would support Yang models > uniformly - customers are still going to use their private NMS systems > except instead of CLI or xml as NNI to network elements they will use YANG > models. > > r. > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
