Re: OPSAREA strategy

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:52 PM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: 'OPS Area (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] OPSAREA strategy
> 
> David Harrington wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> I agree another workshop would be useful, but I think many 
> issues are being addressed by NETCONF and YANG.
> I prefer to just get more work done that we know needs to be done.
> 
> The NETMOD WG has been working with the IPFIX WG and their 
> development of the ipfix-psamp.yang data model has been very 
> helpful in determining requirements for 'real-world' 
> domain-specific models.  It will be interesting to compare 
> configuration of IPFIX via CLI vs. SNMP vs. NETCONF/YANG and 
> evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each one.
> 
> My original comment (as Balazs understood) is that we do not 
> have any YANG infrastructure in place so domain-specific WGs 
> like IPFIX have a reasonable chance of success using 
> NETCONF/YANG.  Hopefully, this work will begin as soon as 
> YANG is approved:
>     * system group
>     * interfaces group
>     * entity group
>     * access control model
> 
> It took many years to agree to each one of these bullets for 
> SNMP.  I am not patient enough to spend the next 20 years 
> reinventing what SNMP already standardized over the last 25 
> years.  Others are looking forward to starting from scratch.  
> That is why I think rough consensus on a 5 year 
> multi-protocol development plan would help.
> 

Let us be a little bit more specific here. 

How would such a 5 year plan look like? What would it include? What is
the framework and the community it needs to get consensus from? 

Dan