& 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 founder Steve Saunders grills Cisco's Roland Acra on how he's bringing automation to life inside the data center.
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
March 20-22, 2018, Denver Marriott Tech Center
March 22, 2018, Denver, Colorado | Denver Marriott Tech Center
March 28, 2018, Kansas City Convention Center
April 4, 2018, The Westin Dallas Downtown, Dallas
April 9, 2018, Las Vegas Convention Center
May 14-16, 2018, Austin Convention Center
September 25-27, 2018, Denver, Colorado
October 23, 2018, Georgia World Congress Centre, Atlanta, GA
November 8, 2018, The Montcalm by Marble Arch, London
November 15, 2018, The Westin Times Square, New York
December 4-6, 2018, Lisbon, Portugal
All Upcoming Live Events
Hot Topics
Trump Says Foxconn Will Make iPhones in US
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 1/15/2018
Net Neutrality Moves Are as Futile as Trump's Comb-Over
Iain Morris, News Editor, 1/18/2018
Huawei, ZTE Face US Federal Ban
Iain Morris, News Editor, 1/15/2018
Analyst: Verizon's Fixed 5G Is a Loss Leader for Mobile
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 1/16/2018
Ericsson Lurches to $1.8B Write-Down
Iain Morris, News Editor, 1/16/2018
Animals with Phones
Live Digital Audio

A CSP's digital transformation involves so much more than technology. Crucial – and often most challenging – is the cultural transformation that goes along with it. As Sigma's Chief Technology Officer, Catherine Michel has extensive experience with technology as she leads the company's entire product portfolio and strategy. But she's also no stranger to merging technology and culture, having taken a company — Tribold — from inception to acquisition (by Sigma in 2013), and she continues to advise service providers on how to drive their own transformations. This impressive female leader and vocal advocate for other women in the industry will join Women in Comms for a live radio show to discuss all things digital transformation, including the cultural transformation that goes along with it.

Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed