>> And the importance of having a queryable
network model cannot be overstated. This has become the core of our
OSS systems
exactly. The vendor CM tools I've looked at all miss the boat in this
regard. I don't want a bunch of one-hit-wonder tools, I want
a foundation we can build from. I'm not sure any of these guys will get
it right because they are going after what sells to the CIO, and the
queryable network model is not sellable at that level (or so I'm told.)
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Kirby Files wrote:
> Paxton wrote on 04/08/2005 04:22 PM:
> > I was interested by Brent's original NANOG posting, in which he states:
> >
> > ..."I'm not simply talking about [..] device configuration monitoring
> > systems [..] Instead I'm talking about systems that will start from a
> > description of how a network ought to be configured, then interact with
> > the various devices on that network to make it so..."
> >
> > What currently available tools actually do this?
>
> None that I've seen. Before going the route of building our own
> internal system for vendor-independent configuration generation and
> management, I met with every CM vendor I could find, including a whole
> bunch of dot-com busts. To name a few (the more promising ones):
>
> Orchestream
> Dorado
> Goldwire
> Digital Fairways
> Cplane
> Network Mantra
> Rendition
>
> Most of these focused on two things: config backup, and limited Cisco
> service config templating.
>
> What we were looking for was a full network equipment and relationship
> model, generic enough to model all types of routers, switches and
> containers, along with a scriptable configuration generation engine to
> interpret that model into device-dependent configuration deltas, and a
> service activation manager to resolve dependencies (which services
> required changes to which devices) and schedule config changes.
>
> Some of the tools above evolved to be support a little more than just
> Cisco, and some of the config templating got a little more
> sophisticated, but most have since died or been acquired, and none
> meet the above goals.
>
> Unfortunately, 4 years later, we still wouldn't be able to replace our
> homegrown configuration management system with any COTS system that
> had comparable features. And the importance of having a queryable
> network model cannot be overstated. This has become the core of our
> OSS systems: driving data collection, automating NMS configuration and
> performance measurement, and enabling much better inventory control
> than we ever had before.
>
> Originally, I had hoped that the DMTF Common Information Model and
> Directory Enabled Networking initiatives might yield some useful
> products in this direction, where TMN failed to help. But these took
> the same path of TMN of over-abstracting and over-specifying
> particularly at the physical layer, making them unworkable for logical
> network modeling.
>
> --kirby files
> NMS Software Lead
> Masergy Communications
>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
