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

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

Junos absolutely isn't YANG model first, it is absolutely the same XML
it's always been.

But which can be statically translated to anything else, as long as
it's not standard.

I'm highly sceptical if anyone anywhere would decide to use anything
standard for their internal representation and yield flexibility and
control away, seems very inefficient and ends up with having to solve
problems in the wrong place, because you can't change the internal
format arbitrarily upon new problems that are best addressed by
changes to the internal representation.


On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 17:13, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> > 100% on board data-first/model-first internal representation (I think
> > Junos, SROS, maybe others today?) 0% on board for standard models
>
> Juniper (JunOS), Nokia (SROS) and Cisco (XR) are all YANG-model-first with
> proprietary models needed to do anything in the configuration engine, so
> their proprietary models are feature complete from a configuration pov.
>
> I've run into others as well, for instance the ones made using Conf-D.
>
> When discussing translation, question is what to translate to/from. The
> only way would be to create a standard model, which is exactly what's
> being done in multiple SDOs, for instance openconfig and ietf. As you say,
> they'll always be a subset, but if you can get by with openconfig for some
> of the functionality then devices supporting the openconfig model from
> multiple vendors can be configured for that subset using a single model
> instead of using the proprietary models.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se



-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/P4WGKS7OKFB625VGXS5C5Q5SIFAAXZVG/