Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

 Hi,

See in-line. 

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh at comcast.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:54 PM
> To: 'Wes Hardaker'; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: paduffy at cisco.com; opsawg at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don't think you can assume all deployemnts use one vendor's 
> tools just because there are no standard PIBs.
> My research showed support in the Juniper/Netscreen products, 
> and in Huawei/HuaweiSymantec products.
> I have no reason to believe all deployments use exclusively 
> one or the other's tools or PIBs.

What I meant to say is that in a given deployments, in the absence of
standards PIBs the agents and managers are probably originating from the
same vendor and using proprietary PIBs. Of course there may be more than
one such vendor in the market. 

> 
> It is safe to assume they may not interoperate across vendor 
> implementations, if that was your point. But that is our 
> fault, when we as a community decided not to allow PIBs onto 
> the standards-track, and effectively told the COPS-PR 
> developers to just go home.
> 

I would probably agree even before the first beer, but I am not sure if
this discussion is useful right now. We are trying to determine whether
to reclassify COPS-PR to Historic, we are not trying to make a
post-mortem. 
 
> In the absence of standard YANG models, any netconf 
> deployments are not all based on one vendor's tools.
> In the absence of standard YANG models, the Netconf 
> deployments using equipment from different vendors and 
> vendor-specific data models are also not interoperable. 
> 
> Is that the point you wanted to make? That interoperability 
> is hindered by not having standards-track models?
> 

Yes. 

> dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:wjhns1 at hardakers.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:51 AM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: David Harrington; paduffy at cisco.com; opsawg at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR
> > 
> > >>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:14:14 +0200, "Romascanu, Dan
> > (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com> said:
> > 
> > DR> In the absence of standards PIBs I suspect that the
> > majority or all
> > DR> the deployments use one vendor tools
> > 
> > I don't think you can safely make that argument.  
> Personally, I have 
> > no knowledge about how well COPS or COPS-PR or 
> implementations of MIBs 
> > are/were used.  But I think since the IETF functionally 
> made all the 
> > COPS folks mad by refusing to let them standardize their work (I'm
> not
> > saying whether this was right or wrong; it's simply fact) the end 
> > result was all the COPS folks left the IETF.  If PIBs were indeed 
> > written they certainly wouldn't have been standardized within the 
> > IETF.  Maybe
> the
> > IETFs push-back did really cause the technology to become 
> unused.  I 
> > don't know.  But I don't think you can use any metrics affected by 
> > IETF actions to decide that.
> > --
> > Wes Hardaker
> > Cobham Analytic Solutions
> > 
> 
>