Re: Is beep really what operators would want?

[Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>]

Wes,

Both of your questions are fair.  Let's start with your last one first:

> However, on a similar note: usb key-chain memory frobs are now about
> $50 for 128Mb, which is cheap enough to give one to every operator so
> they can wander around to all those machines they don't have proper
> tools in and plug in their handy-dandy keychain and get immediate
> access to all the tools they need (ssh, a beep client, and probably
> even a minimal netscape installation would fit on there).  Maybe the
> simple-to-use-over-telnet type protocol requirement is obsolete?

I don't think so.  You need both a programmatic interface and a human 
interface and they both need to be accessible remotely.  If some router 
is having trouble for whatever reason- it's overloaded or it's under 
attack or what have you- an operator wants to be able to get on the 
device and figure out what's going on and fix it.  This is the virtual 
'flashlight in a pop' approach.

Wes Hardaker wrote:
> The beep protocol forces a fair amount of initial communication upon
> the connection.  This is a good thing from the management application
> prospected, but bad from the cut-n-paste prospective.  
Think perl and it all makes sense ;-)  If they can do it in perl without 
fancy encoding requirements then they can rapidly prototype new services 
and features.

I would agree, by the way, that BEEP is probably 110% of what is needed 
in this space.  I just don't think the other transports come close to 
100%...

Eliot



--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>