[NANOG] Re: The Network CLI -- Love it ? Hate it? Needed?

[Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Yes. Juniper has done it day1, not with MIBs tho, but XML. Of course
they could have delivered static translation to MIBs, if there was
market demand, like they did for YANG.

And this is both desirable and most we can ask. And the next time
someone comes up with an idea of standard models, in a new format,
vendors can sigh and write a static translator and wait for the market
to realise why it doesn't work.


Instead of spending a lot of time on redoing the fantasy of standard
MIBs, we should figure out how to create an ecosystem where
model2model translations are easier to do and are work-preserving. So
that if one of us does model translation, they can share that, and we
can consume both models and that translation in any programming
language. So instead of internally everyone doing the same work every
time they need to support a new model, we'd first check if someone has
published the translation that we need.


We can create perfect 100% coverage YANG models representing a
snapshot in time but the further we drift in time the more useless
that model becomes. Like today we mostly use a subset of IF-MIB as
standard, everything else is enterprise. Even BGP is usually
enterprise, because things like IPv6 happened, and there wasn't a
standard available so people migrated to enterprise MIB, plenty of
examples like this and today we've mostly given up, we don't even try
to catch-up and deliver standard MIBs.
Proposing the above problem can be solved by changing model language
is weird, but that's basically what we are as an industry saying.

100% on board data-first/model-first internal representation (I think
Junos, SROS, maybe others today?)
0% on board for standard models


On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 16:12, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, Saku Ytti via NANOG wrote:
>
> > If vendors had always done what Nokia did, always have 100% coverage of
> > Internal State to MIB, we would have all automated this decades ago. And
> > you'd just have this mapping infra of OIDs to vendors for your
> > provisioning needs.
>
> Well, several of the vendors have been doing this for a while now, with
> their internal yang modeled configuration engines. So their proprietary
> models have full coverage (can't create configuration without creating
> model).
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se



-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/5JQIBJFOOREBM454HLKEG4HO34QBEEYF/