& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
dwx
50%
50%
dwx,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/21/2014 | 2:53:59 PM
Re: Vendor buy-in?
This is just a total guess on my part, but with the introduction of things like the vMX, CSR1000v, XRv, ALU vSR they have made their network operating systems run on commodity server hardware, sometimes in a very optimized way.

Why couldn't that be a commodity switch as well?  Juniper, Cisco, Arista, etc. both sell switches based off the same Broadcom chipsets as the white label vendors.   There is no reason why they couldn't make their OS available to run on those devices if they really wanted to.  The reality is the feature support and maturity of what Cisco and Juniper have is leagues above the open source options today or something like Cumulus.  

BTW Linux is the base operating system today for many of their platforms including their versions of the commodity switches.   Cisco even supports running Linux Containers on their Nexus 3K switches.  
sam masud
50%
50%
sam masud,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/21/2014 | 2:34:14 PM
Re: Vendor buy-in?
When you say Cisco/Juniper will "write the code controlling things like bare metal switches," were you also referring to the operating system? If so, would they then not have to fully get behind Linux?
dwx
50%
50%
dwx,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/21/2014 | 12:11:43 PM
Re: Vendor buy-in?
I think in the end what you'll see is some of this work be merged with existing work from the vendors.  No one is really working on standard YANG models which do not interoperate across multiple vendors, that's the whole point.  

I did somewhat mispeak because the YANG model definition documents aren't standards, they are published as Informational RFCs meaning it's up to vendors which model they want to use and it's up to vendors which parts of the YANG models they actually implement.  

I do think naming the draft "BGP config model for service provider networks" is probably the wrong approach.  For instance Juniper and Cisco have thousands of customers using BGP who aren't service providers.   There should just be a BGP configuration model.  

Cisco and Juniper will be the ones to drive the code for their own hardware, and I think in the future they may be the ones who write the code controlling things like bare metal switches. 
Sterling Perrin
50%
50%
Sterling Perrin,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/21/2014 | 9:32:53 AM
Re: Vendor buy-in?
Dwx,

I'm very interested in these open source/standards developments as I believe this type of activity is key to success of SDN in carrier networks. Based on your posts, you seem to have quite a bit of technical knowledge. I'm curious about your statement:

In the end I don't see this having much traction as an actual standards document, but maybe it will get things moving a bit in the right direction.

Can you elaborate on your view? Is it because you feel Cisco and Juniper need to be the ones who drive the code that controls their equipment? Is it because there are technical problems with what these operators are creating? Something else?

These are extremely influential service providers so my initial thought is that their impact on vendors would be huge.

Sterling
cnwedit
50%
50%
cnwedit,
User Rank: Light Beer
11/21/2014 | 7:14:31 AM
Re: Vendor buy-in?
I think Google, et al., know well they need vendor buy-in. As Koley says, the vendors have to do the implementation. But it's hard to imagine vendors, even those as big as Cisco and Juniper, standing up to four of their largest customers and saying, no, thanks. 

Light Reading will certainly be following up this story with their reaction.
DHagar
50%
50%
DHagar,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/20/2014 | 9:46:14 PM
Re: Vendor buy-in
dwx, interesting.  I am thinking though that if even the big gorillas collaborate and create their own models separately, they may find themselves backed into a corner.  I think that model has been tried before.

This BGP model sounds well thought out and sustainable to attracting multiple vendors and systems that can carry them all the way.
dwx
50%
50%
dwx,
User Rank: Light Sabre
11/20/2014 | 7:18:54 PM
Vendor buy-in?
Cisco introduced a BGP YANG model draft last year that was already adopted by the NETMOD working group and has seen a revision in October.  

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhdankin-netmod-bgp-cfg/?include_text=1

Now it contains lots of extensible options which are Cisco specific and not found on other platforms but it also defines base configuration the same on any platform.  There are some glaring omissions from this new effort including RPKI.  

Juniper's 14.2+ router configuration is stored as YANG so I'm interested to see how they define their standard BGP configuration internally.

In the end I don't see this having much traction as an actual standards document, but maybe it will get things moving a bit in the right direction.   The reality is Cisco and Juniper are the 1000lb gorillas and have defined a lot of what is being defined by YANG already, so BGP/MPLS/etc. is going to follow suit.  They are the ones developing new standards for those protocols, doing development and implementation, etc.   The YANG models need to be extensible to support new feature development by those vendors.  

 

 

 


Featured Video
From The Founder
Light Reading is spending much of this year digging into the details of how automation technology will impact the comms market, but let's take a moment to also look at how automation is set to overturn the current world order by the middle of the century.
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
November 30, 2017, The Westin Times Square
December 5-7, 2017, The Intercontinental Prague
March 20-22, 2018, Denver Marriott Tech Center
May 14-17, 2018, Austin Convention Center
All Upcoming Live Events
Infographics
SmartNICs aren't just about achieving scale. They also have a major impact in reducing CAPEX and OPEX requirements.
Hot Topics
Juniper's New Contrail VP Hails From Google
Craig Matsumoto, Editor-in-Chief, Light Reading, 11/15/2017
Eurobites: Telefónica Reckons Plastic Is Fantastic for FTTH
Paul Rainford, Assistant Editor, Europe, 11/15/2017
AT&T's Lurie Leaps to Synchronoss as New CEO
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 11/17/2017
Animals with Phones
Why Cats Don't Run Tech Support Click Here
Live Digital Audio

Understanding the full experience of women in technology requires starting at the collegiate level (or sooner) and studying the technologies women are involved with, company cultures they're part of and personal experiences of individuals.

During this WiC radio show, we will talk with Nicole Engelbert, the director of Research & Analysis for Ovum Technology and a 23-year telecom industry veteran, about her experiences and perspectives on women in tech. Engelbert covers infrastructure, applications and industries for Ovum, but she is also involved in the research firm's higher education team and has helped colleges and universities globally leverage technology as a strategy for improving recruitment, retention and graduation performance.

She will share her unique insight into the collegiate level, where women pursuing engineering and STEM-related degrees is dwindling. Engelbert will also reveal new, original Ovum research on the topics of artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, security and augmented reality, as well as discuss what each of those technologies might mean for women in our field. As always, we'll also leave plenty of time to answer all your questions live on the air and chat board.

Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed
Partner Perspectives - content from our sponsors
The Mobile Broadband Road Ahead
By Kevin Taylor, for Huawei
All Partner Perspectives