some disagree: "Hi all,
I think each vendor will uses its own NMS. So, it can’t be easy to manage global SID allocation with multi-vendor environment alongside multi-NMS. Therefore, PCE (standard) is better choice. Regards, Vahid " Cheers, Jeff On Jul 24, 2019, 4:35 PM -0400, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>, wrote: > > > 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
