[Nemops-interest] Re: [Nemops-workshop-attendees] Re: NEMOPS Workshop Report

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Kristian Larsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > What is the point you are trying to make when you say that you “never
    > spoke of YANG”? It sounds like you, as the tutor, choose not to teach

1. I had no need to speak of RESTCONF/YANG, because I have yet to touch a device
   which speaks RESTCONF.

2. Ergo, no new people will ever learn it until RESTCONF is sufficiently
   ubiquitous that it would be the best and easiest way to get something done.

    > it. I can’t relate at all with your claim that RESTCONF does not scale
    > down. What do you mean? What prevents you from using it? Be specific
    > please.

I'm sure an Orchestrator could tell my two switches (from different vendors,
say) provide a trunk VLAN on some set of ports, but setting that up takes
more resources than just learning how to program two CLIs.

    > In parallel, as I also stated during the workshop, I and others,
    > primarily at Deutsche Telekom, are working on an open source system
    > doing YANG-native orchestration - Orchestron
    > (<https://github.com/orchestron-orchestrator/orchestron/>).

Good to know. I'd like to try it.
I'm not sure with what yet; although I think FRR is supposed to have a
RESTCONF interface (or it's planned).

    > As far as NEMOPS goes, I think it is important to scale up and down but
    > with an emphasis on solving industry problems. That leans more towards
    > large scale SP deployments than 3-switch deployments. I think the
    > NEMOPS report should primarily reflect that.

I disagree strongly.
If it can't work usefully with three switches, then how do you train anyone?

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide