RE: Why are we doing netconf?

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:06 PM
> To: Netconf (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Why are we doing netconf?
> 
> hi
> 
> Thanks Dave for the well-thought through post.
> 
> I think the 'restriction' on Netconf for configuration has 
> always been an artificial one, but it has served us well. One 
> of the big problems we ran into with SNMP was we kept picking 
> off the easier problem of monitoring and never giving 
> configuration enough focus. By limiting the focusing 
> primarily on configuration for Netconf 1.0, we have ended up 
> with a great technical solution that is seeing some good 
> market uptake.

It also was intended to meet the needs of the operators as they were
scanned by 2001-2002. They told us then that they can leave well with
the alarms and performance monitoring mechanisms in SNMP, but consider
configuration by SNMP a dead horse. 

So maybe the solution that we are looking for is not necessarily one
protocol to fit all sizes, sorry - management functions but a framework
where different protocols meet different functions, maybe even more than
one per function according to costs vs. complexity, linked together by
one access and security model. 

This is a contributor view, in an discussion where all views are allowed
in the hope that they will converge some time in the future. 

Dan


--
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/>