RE: Why are we doing netconf?

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

I was not necessarily pleading in favor or against a specific protocol,
but rather making the case that back in 2002 and even more today there
may be room for looking for a consistent security framework, that brings
together different protocols each better suited for specific management
functions rather than design one protocol to perform all management
operations.

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 7:57 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Sharon Chisholm; Netconf (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Why are we doing netconf?
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> > 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.
> >   
> 
> Actually, for fault management management and alarms some 
> consider SNMP a dead horse.  Most enterprises in particular 
> prefer SYSLOG and ASCII. 
> SPs say they like SNMP but then they use tools like 
> Netcool/CIC, and so SYSLOG does very well for them as well.  
> In the end I think we'd find agreement between the two groups 
> that standardized events should tail differentiation.
> 
> I also think one of the reasons they considered SNMP a dead 
> horse was lousy integration with their existing AAA.  ISMS 
> may help this.
> 
> 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/>