Re: OPSAREA strategy

Agreed.

Some operators told us there was a disconnect.
So we deliberately sought feedback from a wide range of operators and
found agreement there was a disconnect.
And we are moving to a multi-protocol approach because operators told
us there was a disconnect.
We also got some suggestions about how to proceed to close the gap
between operators' needs and IETF NM solutions.
But the operators haven't come home yet ...

The IETF is now faced with a problem. We now have multiple protocols,
and most defined their own information models, data modeling language
and data models, and we are not sure how to correlate information
available from different protocols. And while some in the IETF think
that is an important problem to resolve, and standardization is the
obvious answer, real world operators have been using multiple
protocols successfully without vendor-neutral standards for
cross-protocol correlation. 

Prior to the 2002 workshop, the OPS area led an effort to meet with
operators at operator forums, such as NANOG.
I recommend the OPS area drive an effort to get operator feedback
again.
Let's get some feedback on IETF NM work since 2002, get suggestions
from operator experience on whether and how to standardize information
across multiple NM protocols, be sure we understand operators' needs
in today's networks,
and get some suggestions for operators' emerging needs that the IETF
could better address over the next five to ten years.

Let's be sure we don't move down the disconnect road again.

David Harrington
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:59 AM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: 'Andy Bierman'; 'OPS Area (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] OPSAREA - preliminary minutes of the 
> Hiroshima sessionuploaded
> 
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 11:18:02PM +0100, David Harrington wrote:
>  
> > I don't agree with that sentiment.  First I think the IAB should
> > make a recommendation about architectural directions for network
> > management.  The 2002 workshop did that to a degree, and the
result
> > was to implicitly endorse using multiple protocols.  I think the
> > IETF (not just the IESG) needs to discuss a coherent plan for
moving
> > to a multi-protocol framework.  I think the OPS area should help
> > drive that discussion.
> 
> Is there an operator here who knows an operational network that is
> managed by _only_ a single protocol? It could be that operators left
> because of a disconnect from the real world...
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>