Jeff and Robert, Yes, I agree with you but I am still seeing networks that uses multi-NMS(in my region). So, my point is it will be better to provide options that customers decide about it depend on their network not strict option. NMS, PCE, YANG, and etc. SID allocation are all options that needs to be in market.
Regards, Vahid [email protected] > On Jul 25, 2019, at 1:11 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jeff, > > Please re-read my msg :) > > I said that regardless what vendors will offer - those who actually run the > network will have their own *single* NMS to configure it in a fully vendor > independent way. > > Take care, > R. > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:36 PM Jeff Tantsura <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
