60 likes | 157 Views
Ops Area Discussion Management Interface Refinement. Thomas Nadeau Dan Romascanu . IETF 84 - Vancouver. Motivation. Management Interface Requirements for WGs Evolution Evolve Guidance to and assistance for WGs Update to RFC1052. What Are The Issues?.
E N D
Ops Area DiscussionManagement Interface Refinement Thomas Nadeau Dan Romascanu IETF 84 - Vancouver
Motivation • Management Interface Requirements for WGs Evolution • Evolve Guidance to and assistance for WGs • Update to RFC1052
What Are The Issues? • Management requirements for WGs have not evolved for some time. • SNMP writes • Need to evolve for all relevant interfaces • A need of per-workgroup tailoring • Ops “assistant” when relevant • Adjust charter to meet needs of WG and have sufficient OPS work items.
Update to RFC1052 • history - 1052 has a historical introduction of its own, hot it is itself (ancient) history, • What happened since (demise of CMIP, evolution of SNMP), RFC 3535, NETCONF and YANG • 1052 had the concept of a 'short term' solution (SNMP) migrating to a 'long term solution' (CMI) using the same MIB. Why does not this work?
Rfc1052 con’t • No one 'protocol fits all' solution is possible. No one data model can efficiently support multiple protocols. • ‘It’s not only about SNMP and MIBs any longer’ • Risk - 'Short term' becomes 'permanently' as the Internet permanently expands and needs to be managed as a collection of autonomous systems deployed at different layers Internet management
Conclusions/Next Steps • Update 1052 • Clean the historical balast • Adopt the an operational toolset/multiprotocol approach • Include broader architectural view • Goals and Interaction between management protocols and OAM protocols • IESG discussion with WGs